f 


^■^cilcxA-  ^"^^  n  ' - f  •  '^' i^-^' 


DR.  SKINiNER^S  ANSWER  TO  DR.  MORRIS. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Cincinnati  Gazette: 

The  question  raised  between  Dr.  Morris  and  myself,  the  discussion 
of  which  you  have  kindly  permitted,  is  one  of  the  greatest  interest  to 
many  of  your  readers,  and  I  ask  a  place  in  your  columns  in  order  to 
reply  to  his  letter  of  the  21st  inst.  If  it  affords  the  Doctor  pleasure  to 
call  hard  names,  and  invoke  partisan  and  political  odium,  and  he  thinks 
it  will  help  his  cause,  I  make  no  objection  to  his  method.  It  is  not  a 
mode  of  argument  that  suits  me,  and  I  will  carefully  avoid  it.  Many 
gratuitous  allegations,  strained  and  exaggerated,  many  personalities  and 
inuendoes  unworthy  of  this  discussion,  I  pass  by,  preferring  to  let 
them  speak  for  themselves.     They  ought  never  to  have  been  made. 

The  repeated  appeals  for  sympathy,  and  the  effort  to  invoke  preju- 
dice against  me,  while  the  question  is  purely  one  of  law  and  order, 
sound  doctrine,  fealty  to  our  own  constitution,  observance  of  vows  by 
professing  Christians,  and  comity  among  the  Churches,  do  not  disturb 
me.  Dr.  Morris  asks  why  I  "pass  by"  Messrs.  Morey,  White,  and 
McCune,  "  to  accuse  and  arraign  "  him  ?  My  answer  is,  first,  I  did  not 
"  pass  by  "  his  co-Presbyters ;  and,  second,  if  to  say  that  certain  con- 
duct is  inconsistent  with  ordination  vows  and  loyalty  to  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  is  accusation  and  arraignment,  I  plead  guilty  with  a  de- 
cidedly good  conscience. 

But  now  to  the  main  business. 

After  his  preliminaries.  Dr.  Morris  reduces  all  he  has  to  say  to  four 
practical  questions,  rather  to  one  general  question,  with  four  particulars 
arranged  under  it,  viz.:  "  Was  it  right,  wise,  or  commendable  in  it- 
self? " 

(a).   To  form  the  Lhnvqpd  and  Mt.  Lookout  Church? 

(b).  For  this  church  as  formed  to  call  a  pastor,  and  for  a  Presbyte- 
rian minister  to  accept  the  call  and  settle  among  them  ? 

(c).  For  a  council,  such  as  met,  to  recognize  the  church  and  install 
its  pastor  ? 

(d).  And  for  Dr.  Morris  to  sit  in  that  council,  re-examine  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune, and  preach  the  installation  sermon  under  all  the  known  circum- 
stances of  the  case  ? 

Dr.  Morris  takes  the  bold,  open,  and  positive  ground,  that  it  was 
"right,  wise,  and  commendable"  for  him  and  other  Presbyterian  min- 
isters to  do  these  things,  and  that  there  was  nothing  therein  Lnconsis- 


hi-^  ,^it-   '^'^'^  ."^'- 


-^Z  ^} .  r 'iir  "w.n  M  7<\  's  ^^.. 


/  1  S/' 


tent  with  fealty  to  the  faith  and  order  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Let  us  look  at  this  position. 

In  November,  1874,  "an  address  to  all  Christian  ministers  and 
churches  in  North  America,"  devised  in  Cincinnati,  was  issued  in  the 
interest  of  a  new,  undenominational  organization  of  the  whole  church 
of  Christ.  Next,  a  "Christian  Union  Convention"  was  held  in  this 
same  interest,  in  Suffolk,  Va.,  May,  1875,  a  "basis  of  union"  and 
"  declaration"  being  published  to  the  world,  the  topmost  signature  ap- 
pended to  which  is  that  of  Rev.  W,  0.  McCune,  which  had  been 
"unanimously  adopted  and  signed,  October  2,  1874,  at  the  Rooms  of 
the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  Cincinnati,  Ohio."  A  similar 
convention  was  next  held  in  Cincinnati.  The  style  and  title  of  th& 
new  denomination  was  the  "Union  Christian  Churches  of  North  Amer- 
ica." That  this  so-called  anonymous  undenominational  denomination 
is  nevertheless  a  veritable  denomination,  is  clear  from  these  facts: 

1.  It  adopts  a  distinctive  name. 

2.  It  appeals  to  all  to  join  it. 

3.  It  posits  a  creed  and  basis  of  union. 

4.  It  receives  ministers. 

5.  Its  aim  is,  like  Aaron's  rod,  to  swallow  up  all  the  "sects." 

6.  It  claims  to  be  the  primitive  ^ew  Testament  pattern  of  the  Church 
of  God. 

Its  anti-denominational  animus  and  broad  liberalism  is  the  central 
reason  for  its  existence.  It  arraigns  existing  evangelical  denominations 
as  "essentially  sinftd,"  "condemned  in  express  terms  by  Scripture," 
"wrong,"  "displeasing  to  the  head  of  the  Church,"  "injurious  to  the 
Church,"  "putting  stumbling  blocks  in  the  path,  and  ready  excuses  in 
the  mouths  of  sinners."  The  "  remedy  "  it  proffers  for  this  gigantic 
evil  is  the  abolition  of  all  denominations,  by  their  absorption  into  the 
new  organization.  "All  vexed  questions"  as  to  doctrine  and  order,  it 
commits  to  the  "  broad  and  free  domain  of  Christian  Liberty."  Dis- 
tinctive principles  it  calls  "divisive,"  seeks  to  sink  them  and  to  exalt 
every  possible  point  of  unity. 

The  L.  and  M.  L.  Church  is  the  legitimate  outgrowth  of  this'move- 
ment,  as  Dr.  Morris  was  well  aware.  It  was  not  a  mere  casual  associ- 
ation of  persons  grouped  together  from  necessity,  and  with  no  other 
design  than  simply  to  worship  God,  as  Dr.  Morris  would  have  us  be- 
lieve. It  was  the  practical  result  of  this  new  anti-denominational  ef- 
fort ;  its  special  aim  was  perfectly  understood.  It  was  a  new  thing,  to 
the  genesis  and  birth  of  which  Mr.  McCune  had  devoted  himself.  A 
"  declaration  "  of  its  principles  had  been  published  previously,  and 
sent  to  those  who  were  invited  to  the  council,  in  which  the  position  is 


taken  that  Christ  has  left  on  record  "  no  provision  in  the  New  Testament 
for  the  organization  of  different  denominations."  The  sophism  was 
used  that,  because  "the  inspired  apostles  never  organized  different  de- 
nominations," therefore,  no  evangelical  denomination  has  any  Scriptural 
right  to  exist;  a  sophism  refuted  long  ago  by  Chillingworth,  when  de- 
fending the  Reformers  and  the  Reformation.  The  Churches  of  Chris- 
tendom are  expressly  called  "needless  denominational  churches,"  "'a 
manifest  reproach  to  the  cause  of  Christ,"  and  their  creeds,  as  such, 
"  directly  contrary  to  Scripture."  With  these  facts  fully  before  him 
in  print — I  have  these  words  from  Dr.  Morris  himself — "  I  think  we 
can  safely  take  part  in  the  council  by  which  this  Church  is  to  be  or- 
ganized, and  as  safely  install  Brother  McCune  as  its  pastor." 

And  now,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Morris' general  question,  "  Was  it  right, 
wise,  and  commendable"  for  him  and  others  to  do  what  was  done 
under  these  circumstances,  in  the  organization  and  recognition  of  the 
L.  and  M.  L.  Church,  I  shall  first  state  Avhat  is  not  exceptionable,, 
and  then  what  is  exceptionable,  in  this  Avhole  subject,  and  what  was, 
in  my  judgment,  inconsistent,  not  only^f  jr  him,  but  for  the  three  other 
Presbyterian  ministers  of  Cincinnati  to  countenance. 

I — What  is  not  exceptionable  : 

1.  Any  minister  of  Christ  has  a  perfect  I'ight  to  preach  the  doctrine 
of  Scriptural  union,  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  fellowship,  charity  and 
good  will  to  all,  and  all  that  is  involved  in  the  communion  of  saints, 
and  to  strive  after  more  blessed  and  closer  relations  with  all  Christians, 
and  no  Presbytery  nor  "Presbyterian  Bishop,  self-sent  and  irregular," 
can  take  it  away. 

2.  Any  number  of  Christians  have  a  perfect  right  to  leave  their 
churches  whenever  they  deem  it  best  for  their  own  good  and  the  glory 
of  Christ,  and,  having  first  taken  their  letters  of  dismission,  then 
unite  to  organize  another  church  on  a  Scriptural  foundation,  and  no 
one  has  a  right  to  object. 

3.  Any  Presbyterian  minister  has  a  perfect  right  to  sit  in  a  council 
of  evangelical  ministers,  called  together  by  an  evangelical  church  or 
churches,  and  contribute  his  presence  to  their  deliberations  in  the  pr- 
ganization  and  recognition  of  a  church,  provided  the  church  to  be 
organized  and  recognized  stand  in  its  polity  and  creed  upon  a  Scrip- 
tural f  jundation  ;  and  any  Presbyterian  minister  has  a  right,  having 
first  obtained  consent  of  his  Presbytery,  to  accept  a  call  from  such  a 
church  and  be  installed  as  its  pastor. 

II — Now  as  to  what  is  really  exceptionable  : 

1.  No  minister  has  a  right,  while  under  vows  to  his  own  denom- 
ination and  remaining  in  it,  to  teach  or  preach   that  it  has  no  Scrip. 


tural  warrant  for  its  existance  ;  that  all  evangelical  denominations,  as 
now  existing,  are  "needless."  "divisive,"  "essentially  sinful,"  and  a 
"  manifest  reproach  to  the  cause  of  Christ."  He  may  go  out  from  it 
and  do  this,  but  to  remain  in  it  while  so  doing,  is  to  condemn  himself, 
his  brethren,  and  his  order,  together  with  all  the  churches  of  Christ  in 
the  world.  It  is  openly  to  repudiate  his  own  engagements  to  maintain 
its  integrity,  its  doctrine  and  polity,  its  peace,  unity,  and  purity.  The 
manifest  result,  should  all  act  on  this  principle,  would  be  the  instant 
dissolution  of  every  church  in  existence. 

2.  No  Presbyterian  minister  has  a  right  to  teach  or  preach,  that  the 
distinctive  doctrines  of  his  church  are  "divisive"  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  or  that  they  stand  in  the  way  of  that  spiritual  unity  for  which 
Christ  prayed,  or  that  these  distinctive  doctrines  should  be  "dropped 
off  whenever  it  may  be  practicable,"  or  pushed  into  the  background, 
for  the  sake  of  coming  to  his  standard  of  ecclesiastical  or  non-ecclesi- 
astical uniformity,  or  for  the  phantom  of  a  general  undenominational 
organization. 

3.  No  Presbyterian  minister  has  a  right  to  share  in  either  the  (n-- 
ganization  or  recognition  of  a  society  which  builds  itself  upon  any  of 
the  above  principles,  or  declares  that  its  mission  is  a  protest  against 
the  distinctive  creed  and  polity  of  his  own  church.  To  do  so,  is  to 
protest  against  himself  and  his  own  church,  and  to  teach  all  church 
members  to  undervalue  the  very  things  he  was  solemnly  ordained  to 
esteem  and  defend. 

4.  No  Presbyterian  minister  has  a  right  to  recognize  as  Scripti^-al 
officers  in  the  Church  of  Christ  any  men  who  have  been  appointed  as 
"overseers"  by  an  ordinary  motion  and  vote  of  the  people,  or  even 
by  an  election,  who  are  yet  without  Scriptural  ordination  and  bound 
by  no  vows  whatever  to  any  defined  .system  of  church  government. 
Only  very  recently  the  Reunited  Presbyterian  Church  has  uttered  its 
unanimous  protest  against  the  recognition  of  mere  "  committee  men  " 
as  having  any  power  of  jurisdiction  whatever  in  the  house  of  God, 

5.  No  Presbyterian  minister  has  the  right,  in  the  "interim"  or  out 
of  the  "  interim"  of  the  meetings  of  his  Presbytery,  formally  to  accept 
a  call  to  any  church  whatever,  or  to  be  formally  i'.istalled  over  it  as 
pastor,  except  by  leave  of  the  Presbytery.  The  reasons  for  this  are 
perfectly  obvious,  and  need  not  be  stated  ;  and  no  alleged  instance  of 
the  violation  of  this  organic  law  can  be  pleaded  in  its  justification. 

6.  No  Presbyterian  minister  has  a  right  to  install  a  co-Presbyter 
upon  a  creed  and  over  a  church  which  holds  as  matter  of  indifference 
the  peculiar  and  distinctive  tenets  of  his  own  church  as  to  the  orders 
of  the  ministry,  baptism,  the  Lord's  supper,  the  form  of  church  gov- 


ernnient,  discipline,  and  mode  of  worship;  all   which   tenets  he  has 
pledged  himself  to  defend  and  maintain. 

7.  No  minister  of  any  denomination  has  a  right  to  teach  that  a 
voluntary  society,  without  ordained  officers,  is  a  scripturally  organized 
church  of  Christ.  And  no  Presbyterian  minister  has  a  right  to 
organize  any  church  whatever  without  the  permission  of  his  Presbytery, 
or  take  refuge,  for  this  purpose,  behind  an  irresponsible  council  con- 
voked through  his  instrumentality.  To  organize  a  church  is  a  function 
reserved  solely  to  the  Presbytery,  to  be  effected,  either  directly  by 
the  whole  body,  or  indirectly  by  a  committee  or  an  individual ;  in 
both  these  cases,  however,  under  express  authority.  The  so-called 
organization  of  the  L.  and  M.  L.  Church  was  effected  either  under  the 
supervision  of  Mr.  McCune  himself,  the  so-called  "overseers"  being 
appointed,  but  not  ordained  ;  or  by  the  council  met  to  recognize  the 
so-called  church  and  install  the  i\istor.  No  church  officers  were 
ordained  in  either  case.  To  call  such  a  society  a  scriptural  church 
organization,  then  solemnly  re-examine  Brother  McCune  to  give  him 
a  new  indorsement,  then  install  him  as  a  Presbyterian  minister  to  be 
its  pastor,  and  then  solemnly  to  recognize  and  commend  this  unorgan- 
ized alliance  as  a  scripturally  organized  church  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  was  a  farce,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  at  which  sober  men  might 
well  smile.  How  could  Dr.  Morris  and  his  Presbyterian  brethren 
perpetrate  such  an  absurdity? 

8.  No  Presbyterian  minister  has  a  right  to  belong  to  two  different 
denominations  at  the  same  time,  especially  when  one  of  these  is  a 
standing  protest  against  the  existence  of  the  other  as  unscriptural,  and 
its  avowed  aim  is  to  sink  the  distinctive  tenets  of  the  other  for  the 
sake  of  union.  This  is  too  self-evident  to  require  enlargement  or 
illustration. 

9.  No  church  member  has  a  i-ight,  while  remaining  undismissed 
from  his  own  church  and  in  covenant  therewith,  to  disregard  his 
solemn  vows  and  enter  into  another  church  organization  for  any 
purpose  whatever.  His  solemn  engagement  to  the  new  one  is  a 
renunciation  of  his  sacramental  vows  to  the  old.  And  no  Presbyterian 
minister  has  a  right  to  countenance  such  irregular  procedure;  and  yet 
this  is  what  was  done  in  the  formation  and  recognition  of  the  L.  and 
M.  L.  Church. 

10.  No  church  member  ha«  a  right  to  belong  to  two  different 
churches  at  the  same  time,  especially  when  the  second  is  a  standing 
protest  against  the  Scriptural  right  of  the  first  to  exist.  He  can  not 
be  faithful  in  his  duties  to  both,  nor  can  he  be  the  subject  of  two 
conflicting  jurisdictions.     This  also  is  too  plain  to  need  illustration. 


11.  No  set  of  Christians,  least  of  all  undismissed  cluirch-members, 
have  any  right  whatever  to  organize  a  society  of  any  kind  and  baptize 
it  as  a  church  of  Christ,  while  they  ignore  the  fundamental  principles 
of  church  polity  as  laid  down  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  The  L.  and 
M.  L.  society  has  no  ordained  officers  of  any  kind  whatever,  and  we 
challenge  any  one  to  show  us  a  scripturally  organized  church  without 
such  officers  in  it.  The  reason  for  the  course  of  procedure  among  the 
L.  and  M.  L.  people  is  very  manifest.  According  to  Mr.  McCune's 
published  statement  in  the  Gazette  of  the  24th  inst.,  he  went  among 
them,  he  and  they  "mutually  concurring"  to  form  just  such  an 
abnormal  society  as  has  been  created.  Either  to  have  ordained  elders^ 
or  to  have  asked  permission  from  his  Presbytery  to  do  this  thing,  was 
not  "nominated  in  the  bond"  among  so  many  confederate  and  con- 
flicting beliefs  as  to  church  polity.  It  vvould  have  been  "  distinctive,'' 
"divisive,"  and  "  denominational."  Dr.  Morris  would  have  us  believe 
that  only  "provisional  arrangements"  in  the  interim  of  Presbytery 
were  effected  Strange  conception !  Let  him  look  at  liis  own  pub- 
lished declaration  in  the  council,  that  the  L.  and  M.  L.  people  "  have 
now  resolved  to  organize  themselves  permanently  as  a  Church  of  Christ.' 
Pray,  what  is  it  to  "provisionally"  organize  "permanently,"  or  "per- 
manently" organize  "provisionally?"  These  arrangements  were  of  the 
very  essence  and  enduring  substance  of  the  whole  scheme.  Viewed 
from  whatever  angle,  there  is  no  Scriptually  organized  church  there  at 
all,  while  yet  it  is  recognized  as  such  by  Dr.  Morris  and  hit*  co-Presbyters. 
That  Mr.  McCune,  therefore,  while  a  member  of  the  Presbytery/of 
Cincinnati,  did  form  a  new  society  in  its  very  bosom,  as  a  standing 
protest  against  his  own  and  all  other  denominations  as  "needles,  sinftd,' 
and  a  reproach  to  the  cause  of  Christ,"  and  form  it  with  a  mere 
committee,  complimented  as  "overseers,"  and  called  it  a  church 
organization,  and  joined  himself  to  it  without  leave  of  his  Presbytery, 
and  that  Dr  Morris  and  other  Presbyterians  did  assist  to  install  their 
own  co-Presbyter  over  it  as  pastor,  also  without  leave  of  Presbytery,  and 
bid  it  God-speed,  is  transparently  clear  as  the  cloudless  sun  at  noon. 
And  it  is  just  as  clear  that  the  L.  and  M.  L.  society  has  not  been 
authoritively  recognized  by  any  Church  of  Christ  in  existence,  or  by 
any  council  representing  any  Church  of  Christ,  or  that  Mr.  McCune 
has  been  re-examined  by  any  such.  It  is  about  time  that  men  should 
cease  abusing  this  word  "  represent,"  and  that  ministers  should  under- 
stand that  they  do  not  "represent"  the  denominations  to  which  they 
belong,  when  they  voluntarily  go  as  individuals  to  attend  conventions 
and  meetings  of  one  sort  or  another. 

And  now,  then,  in  direct  answer  to  the  question  of  Dr.  Morris,  "Was 


it  right  in  itself,  wis-e,  and  coniniendable"  to  do  such  things,  or  to 
countenance  the  doing  of  them?  I  answer,  emphatically,  thrice  over, 
No !  Was  it  for  the  peace,  unity,  and  purity  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church?  I  answer  a  hundred  times  iVo/  Was  it  consistent  with  sol- 
emn vows  taken  to  maintain  and  defend  the  doctrine  and  order  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  as  the  true  doctrine  and  order  of  the  house  of 
God?     I  answer  ten  thousand  times  No ! 

Some  Presbyterian  defenders  of  modern  liberalism  aud  broad-church- 
ism,  are  welcome  to  assert  that  the  position  I  take  would  be  "high- 
church  even  at  Rome,"  which,  in  plain  English,  is  to  say,  that  the 
Presbyterian  order  they  would  have  vowed  to  support,  surpasses  the 
Papacy  itself  in  il liberality  and  despotic  power.  I  do  not  wonder  they 
desire  a  new  denomination,  but  that  my  friend.  Dr.  Morris,  being  a 
representative  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  two  of  its  high  places  of 
trust,  should  even  countenance  by  his  presence  the  revolutionary  con-^ 
duct  which  has  evoked  this  discussion,  is,  in  my  judgment,  inconsistent 
with  our  ordination  vows.  And  that  in  more  than  two  closely  printed 
columns  of  a  secular  paper  he  should  lay  out  his  strength  to  palliate  or 
justify  the  irregularities  and  unconstitutional  acts  above  mentioned, 
and  appeal  to  the  general  public  for  sympathy  in  the  same,  is,  to  me. 
a  matter  of  great  regret.  If  the  masters  of  the  house  do  so,  in  what 
may  not  the  humbler  servants  indulge  ?  If  the  captains  of  the  Lord's 
hosts  speak  so,  what  language  may  we  not  soon  hear  from  the  lips  of 
the  rank  and  iile  ? 

I  trust  I  am  liberal  in  my  spirit  as  any  man  can  be,  but,  with  me, 
the  truth  of  God's  word,  and  fidelity  to  my  engagements,  can  never  be 
thrown  aside  to  encourage  that  phantom  of  union  which,  if  we  are  to 
be  logical,  the  L.  and  M.  L.  Church  symbolizes  as  the  "  best  contri- 
bution to  millenial  unity,"  and,  after  eighteen  centuries,  as  the  only 
instance,  yet  extant,  of  the  fulfilment  of  our  Lord's  intercessory  prayer.. 
And  I  hold,  as  strongly  as  any  one  can,  that  it  is  the  imperative  duty 
of  the  followers  of  Christ  to  aim  at  bringing  about  a  true  union  of  all 
the  different  parts  of  the  household  of  faith  upon  a  Scriptural  basis. 
But  that  such  a  union  may  be  effected  by  the  abolition  of  the  evangel- 
ical denominations,  or  the  assertion  that  they  are  all  "  essentially  sin- 
ful," or  that  the  L.  and  M.  L.  Church  is  a  forelight  of  millennial 
glory,  I  can  never  believe. 

Dr.  Morris  says:  "  The  real  question  is  whether  the  Christian  senti- 
ment of  Cincmnati  will  condemn  this  little  band  of  believers  for  what 
they  themselves  have  done  for  the  honor  of  Christ  and  the  establish- 
ment of  His  (jospel  among  them?"  In  the  light  of  what  has  been 
said  as  to  the  origin,  nature,  and  aim  of  this  organization,  and  of  what 


has  been  actually  done,  how  utterly  inadequate  a  statement  Is  this? 
No,  this  is  not  the  "  rail  qaesfion."  The  real  question  is  whether  min- 
isters and  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  may  combine  to  coun- 
tenance the  proclamation  to  the  world,  that  their  own  denomination 
has  no  scriptural  right  to  exist.  The  real  question  is,  whether  they 
may  be  encouraged  in  such  procedure,  and  what  is  to  be  the  harvest 
in  years  to  come  of  such  seed  sown  now  ?  The  real  question  is,  whether 
a  latitudinarian  union  is  to  be  held  superior  to  ministerial  vows,  and 
wliether  tiie  prayer  of  Christ  is  a  prayer  for  such  union  as  is- illustrated 
in  the  organization  and  recognition  of  the  Jj,  and  M.  L.  Church? 

Dr.  Morris  endeavors  to  show  that  the  new  movement  is  not  antl- 
denominational,  though  jwidenominational.  In  ray  humble  apprehen- 
sion, it  Avould  require  a  genius  more  gifted  than  Aristotle  to  furnish 
any  solid  reasons  why  Christians  should  secede  from  existing  denom- 
inations for  the  express  purpose  of  creating  a  new  undenominational 
organization,  unless  it  were  that  they  were  "anti"  as  well  as  "  uu  "- 
denominational  in  their  principles.  What  earthly  reason  can  be  given 
for  being  tmdenominational,  unless  it  is  that  they  are  a?i^'-denomina- 
tional  ?  But  their  publi'^hed  declarations  are  already  decisive  and  con- 
clusive on  this  point.  Surely,  if,  as  is  asserted  in  the  "  address'  and 
"declarations"  alluded  to,  denominational  churches  are  "needless," 
"  divisive,"  "  essentially  sinful,"  "a  manifest  reproach  to  the  cause  of 
Christ,"  and  "displeasing  to  the  Head  of  the  Church,"  how  ridicu- 
lous a  figure  would  men  cut  who  claim  to  be  not  aHii-denominati(jmal, 
but  jsro-denominational  while  yet-ioidenominational?  Or  are  they  to 
be  left,  like  Mahomet's  coffin,  swinging  in  the  air  between  wind  and 
water,  neither  cmti  nor  jjro,  but  simply  unf  Beyond  all  question,  the 
merest  consistency  compels  them  to  be  opposed  to  all  denominations 
whatever,  and  this  is  the  only  possible  meaning  that  «;)denominational 
can  bear. 

And  all  this  would  be  true,  even  if  the  war  record  of  Dr.  Stuart 
Robinson  had  been  identical  with  that  of  Dr.  Morris,  or  if  Beauregard 
had  danced  w'ith  a  Southern  army  to  Boston,  as  Sherman  did  with  a 
Northern  one  to  Savannah.  What  logical  value  is  there  in  the  al- 
-  lusion  to  Dr.  Robinson,  when  he  is  known  not  to  be  the  author  of  the 
articles  in  the  Christian  Observer  reflecting  on  Dr.  Morris' course  ? 

In  conclusion,  I  answer  once  more  the  question  of  Dr.  Morris  four 
times  repeated,  viz.:  "  Was  it  right,  wise,  and  commendable,"  etc., 
by  saying.  No.  And  no  plea  based  upon  the  blessed  communion  of 
saints,  and  no  argument  urged  from  considerations  of  brotherly  love, 
the  broad  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  fellowship  of  all  wlio  are  one 
in  Christ,   can   avail  in   the  least  to  change  this  answer.     After  every 


9 

plea  has  l)ceii  mudc,  the  questiou  still  returns,  Are  we  faithful  as 
Presbyterian  ministers  to  our  ordination  vows  to  maintain  the  doctrine 
and  order  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  if  we  countenance  such  decla- 
tions  and  proceedings  as  those  which  have  emerged  into  history  in  the 
organization  and  recognition  of  the  M.  and  M,  L.  Church  ?  No  em- 
phasizing of  the  principles  of  Christian  fellowship  can  sink  this  ques- 
tion out  of  sight. 

Already  seven  or  more  public  journals  have  planted  themselves 
squarely  on  the  ground  I  have  taken,  and  I  am  sure  it  is  impregnable. 
No  man  loves  Christian  fellowship  more  than  myself,  and  none  more 
earnestly  desires  that  the  young  men  under  Dr.  jNIorris'  instruction 
should  have  large  and  liberal  hearts  to  all  whom  Christ  has  received. 
But  if  the  distinctive  principles  of  faith  and  order  they  are  soon  to 
vow  solemnly  to  defend,  are  to  be  held  up  as  "divisive"  of  the  body 
of  Christ,  and  they  are  to  be  taught  to  "drop  off  all  differences, 
whenever  they  find  it  practicable,"  and  to  countenance  and  multiply 
such  organizations  as  this  new  one,  I  would  myself  prefer  they  should 
either  not  take  their  consecration  vows,  or,  having  taken  them,  should 
as  speedily  as  possible  relieve  themselves  of  the  same. 

Presbyterians  can  not  be  too  loyal  to  their  church  in  this  day  of  lat- 
itudinarian  tendencies  and  broad-churehism,  when  the  cry  of  union, 
indiscriminate  and  unreflecting,  has  become  the  watchword  of  so  many. 
Evermore,  truth  is  before  union,  and  not  union  before  truth,  and  if 
there  is  one  fact  clear  and  outstanding  in  the  history  of  the  church,  it 
is  that  the  mutilation  of  her  doctrines,  and  the  schisms  ihat  have  fol- 
lowed, have  been  the  result  in  every  case  of  the  lax  use  of  the  power 
of  the  keys. 

With  such  a  sentiment  as  this,  and  with  the  profound  conviction 
that  in  our  time,  when  the  "spirit  of  the  age"  is  crying  "progress 
and  reform  "  on  every  hand,  we  need  to  be  intensely  careful  as  to  the 
truth  of  God  and  the  order  of  our  church.  And  so,  with  the  kindest 
personal  regard  for  those  who  differ  from  rne,  I  subscribe  myself,  very 
sincerelv  yours  and  theirs,  in  tiie  bonds  of  the  grand  old  Presbyterian 
Church^  THOMAS  H.  SKINNER. 


t" 


DEFENSE 


V/- 


<^ 


riii|r 


.i^wO'-.^^iniTST    TXIE 


FALSEUmONIllLIBERllLllOFTHEMS, 


By  THOMAS  H.  SKINNER, 


Pastor  of  the  Second  I'ttsbyteriau  Chuich,  Cincinnati,  O. 


'  I  have  dared  to  lift  up  the'Banner  that,  is  fallen  down."— John  Calvin. 


CINCINNATI  : 

GAZETTE  COMPANY  PRINT,   N.   E.  COR.   FOURTH  AND  VINE  STS. 

1876. 


INTRODUCTION. 


^^-^HE  history  of  the  publication  of  this  Suppressed  Speech  can 
^1  K  ^®  ^^^^^  ^"  ^  ^"^^  words.  The  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati  met 
^PJ*'!  12th  and  13th  instants,  at  Glendale,  Ohio,  in  its  regular 
^^  Spring  meeting.  Under  a  conviction  of  duty,  and  having 
received  many  letters  from  distinguished  ministers  in  our  church  ex- 
pressive of  their  sense  of  the  need  of  speedy  action  by  the  Presbytery 
in  reference  to  the  Lin  wood  and  Mt.  Lookout  organization,  and  the 
principles  of  Mr.  McCune  in  which  it  was  founded,  and  having  been 
virtually  challenged  to  bring  the  matter  before  the  Presbytery,  I 
introduced  the  following  Preamble  and  Resolution,  as  coming  under 
the  Episcopal  power  of  the  Presbytery,  provided  for  in  the  Form  of 
Government,  chap.  10,  sec.  8,  in  the  clause  "  to  resolve  questions  of 
doctrine  or  discipline  seriously  and  reasonably  proposed,  and  to  con- 
demn erroneous  opinions  which  injure  the  purity  or  peace  of  the 
church;"  a  function  distinct  from  the  exercise  of  elaborate  forensic 
process  involved  in  the  same  section,  viz,  of  "judging  ministers."  The 
object  of  the  paper  was  simply  to  officially  discountenance  the  theories 
and  practices  of-  Mr.  McCune,  and  the  irregularities  connected  there- 
with, and  declare  them  inconsistent  with  official  membership  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

"  Whereas,  It  is  well  known  to  members  of  this  Presbytery  that  the 
Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  a  member  of  this  body,  has  for  years  past 
preached  and  published,  by  book  and  pamphlet,  and  articles  in  the 
religious  and  secular  press,  certain  principles  antagonistic  to  the  faith 
and  oi'der  of  the  Presbyterian  Church;  and, 

"Wiereas,  It  is  well  known  that  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  carrying 
these  principles  into  practical  effect,  Mr.  McCune  has  been  instru- 
mental in  promoting  the  organization  of  a  new  church  within  the 
bounds  of  this  Presbytery,  out  of  undismissed  members,  and  upon  the 
foundation  of  these  principles,  and  has  been  re-examined  by  an  irres- 
ponsible Council,  accepted  a  call  to  become  the  pastor  of  the  new 
church,  and  has  been  installed,  as  such,  by  this  Council,  all  without 
leave  of  his  Presbytery ;  and. 


"  Wiereas,  The  newly  organized  LinM'ood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Church  is 
one  of  a  series  of  independent  churches,  associated  on  a  common  basis, 
confessedly  "  to  re-organize  the  New  Testament  Church,"  and  to 
maintain,  among  other  things,  the  "  essential  sinfulness"  of  existing 
Presbyterian  and  all  other  evangelical  denominations,  as  such;  and, 
also,  to  maintain  the  non-enforcement  of  denominational  law,  and  of 
non-subscription,  by  the  ministry,  to  denominational  creeds;  and, 

''  Whereas,  Mr,  McCune  has  joined  himself  to  this  new  independent 
association,  being  chairman  of  one  of  its  conventions,  and  all  without 
dismission  from  his  Presbytery;  therefore, 

"Eesolved,  That  this  Presbytery  rejects  the  principles  of  Mr.  McCune, 
as  contrary  to  the  established  principles  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
as  to  doctrine  and  order ;  and  that  the  course  pursued  by  Mr.  McCune 
in  promoting  the  organization  of  the  M.  and  M.  L.  Church  to  pro- 
pagate these  principles,  and  to  receive  and  send  out  ministers  of  the 
Gospel ;  his  accepting  a  call  to  become  the  pastor  of  the  new  church, 
and  so  joining  himself  to  this  new  movement,  all  without  application 
to,  leave  of,  or  dismission  from  his  Presbytery,  is  unprecedented  in 
the  history  of  the  Presbyterian  body,  is  in  contravention  of  its  organic 
law,  and  is  inconsistent  with  membership  in  this  Presbytery." 

The  paper  was  duly  seconded ;  upon  which  I  rose  to  speak  to  the 
subject  matter  involved.  Having  reached  the  place  marked  (*)  on 
page  8,  Mr.  McCune  interrupted  my  speech,  alleging  that  the  Pre- 
amble and  Resolution  w^ere  both  out  of  order,  as  being  a  personal 
attack  upon  himself,  and  an  informal  preferrihg  of  charges,  giving  him 
no  opportunity  for  defense.  This  point  of  order  was  not  made  by  any 
member  of  the  body  wdien  the  paper  itself  was  offered  and  seconded". 
The  moderator  decided  that  Mr.  McCune's  point  was  not  well  taken, 
and  that  the  Resolution  being  in  order  was  debatable.  Appeal  was 
taken,  and  the  chair  was  not  sustained.  It  was  evident  that  the  effort 
was  to  throw  my  speech  out  of  the  Presbytery.  It  was  also  stated  that 
members  of  the  Presbytery  did  not  "  well  know"  what  was  recited  in 
the  paper..  To  meet  this  scruple  I  changed  the  Preamble  and  Resolu- 
ution,  inserting  the  words,  "it  is  reported"  instead  of  "it  is  well 
known,"  and  moved  the  following  form,  whic-h  was  seconded  : 

''Whereas,  It  is  reported  that  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  a  member  of 
this  body,  has  for  years  past  preached  and  published  by  book  and 
pamphlets  and  articles  in  the  religious  and  secular  press,  certain 
principles  antagonistic  to  the  faith  and  order  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church;  and, 

"  Whereas,  It  is  reported,  that  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  carrying 
these  principles  into  practical  effect,  Mr.  McCune  has  been  instrumen- 


tal  in  promoting  the  organization  of  a  new  church  within  the  bounds 
of  this  Presbytery,  out  of  undismissed  members,  and  upon  the  founda- 
tion of  these  principles,  and  has  been  re-examined  by  an  irresponsible 
Council,  accepted  a  call  to  become  the  pastor  of  the  new  church,  and 
has  been  installed  as  such  by  this  Council,  all  without  leave  of  his 
Presbytery ;    therefore, 

"Re&olved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed  to  inquire  into 
the  facts  of  the  case,  and  report  to  the  Presbytery  what  action,  if  any, 
is  necessary  in  the  premises." 

No  point  of  order  was  raised  until  I  had  proceeded  again  in  my 
speech  to  the  line  marked  (f)  on  page  9,  when  I  was  again  interrupt- 
ed, and  again  the  point  of  order  was  raised,  and  the  Preamble  ruled 
out.  All  that  was  left  was  the  Resolution  for  a  committee  of  inquiry. 
Under  this  it  was  contended  that  I  had  no  right  to  speak  to  the  merits 
of  the  case,  the  Preamble  having  been  turned  out  of  doors,  and  nothing 
left  for  the  "  case  "  and  the  "  premises"  in  the  Resolution  to  refer  to ! 
At  this  juncture,  Dr.  Montfort  introduced  an  amendment  (I)  to  the 
effect,  that  a  committee  of  conference  have  a  'personal  intervieiv  (/)  with 
Mr.  McCune,  and  report  at  the  fall  meetmg.H  To  this  I  objected, 
because  it  did  not  include  an  examination  into  the  facts  of  the  case. 
Dr.  Morris  suggested  that  Dr.  Monfort's  Resolution  was  insufficient, 
whereupon  it  was  so  amended  as  to  include  an  examination  into  the 
facts,  and  a  committee  was  appointed  to  report  next  fall,  on  a  matter 
which  required  prompt  and  immediate  action ;  especially  as  Mr. 
McCune  had  just  been  enrolled  as  "Pastor"  on  the  minutes  of  the 
General  Assembly,  thereby  acknowledging  the  validity  of  his  installa- 
tion by  an  irresponsible  Council. 

Thus  was  I  twice  put  down,  and  my  Preamble  and  Resolution  and 
Speech  turned  out  of  the  house.  I  conceive  this  to  be  altogether 
wrong.  As  a  free  Presbyter,  under  the  banner  of  our  Constitution,  I 
claim  to  have  the  right,  under  the  Episcopal  power  of  the  Presbytery, 
to  introduce  a  Preamble  and  Resolution  reciting  the  points  in  which 
the  faith  and  order  of  my  church  have  been  publicly  assailed,  and  in 
the  open  discussion  of  which,  through  the  press,  leading  members  of 
this  Presbytery  have  taken  a  part.  And  this,  I  claim,  whether  the 
Resolution  may  have  been  adopted  or  not.  If  the  faith  and  polity  of 
the  church  may  be  publicly  assailed,  outside  the  Presbytery,  by  long 
articles  in  the  newspapers,  I  certainly  have  the  right,  upon  the  floor 
of  the  Presbytery,  to  call  attention  to  the  fact,  recite  the  grounds  and 
reasons  for  my  motion,  and  defend  the  same,  holding  myself  personally 
responsible  for  whatsoever  I  might  utter.     The  objection  that  a  com- 


.6 

mittee  of  inquiry  will  report  amounts  to  nothing,  for  the  committee 
may  report  that  no  action  is  necessary  in  the  case. 

Besides,  every  member  of  a  deliberative  body  has  a  right  guaranteed 
to  him,  by  written  parliamentary  law,  to  speak  to  the  merits  of  every 
Resolution  that  is  debatable ;  and  every  Resolution  is  debatable  that 
is  in  order ;  and  this  Resolution  was  declared  out  of  order,  simply  on 
the  ground  that  it  entered  into  the  merits  of  the  case  on  which  the 
committee  was  to  report;  a  position  wholly  indefensible,  because  par- 
liamentary law  can  not  be  set  aside  under  cover  of  a  point  of  order ; 
nor  can  the  Episcopal  power  of  the  Presbytery,  as  above  stated,  be  set 
aside  by  its  judicial  power. 

Aware  that  wrong  motives  have  been  imputed  to  me,  I  publish 
what  I  had  to  say  in  Presbytery,  and  which  Presbytery  would  not 
hear.  Mr.  McCune  thus  speaks  in  the  Cincinnati  Commercial  of  Feb. 
15,  1876 — "  Dr.  Skinner,  without  any  earthly  provocation,  has  made 
a  determined  assault  upon  my  ministerial  reputation,  and  inasmuch  as 
I  am  advocating  no  sentiments  now  that  I  have  not  openly  proclaimed 
for  ten  years,  the  evidence  is  conclusive  that  his  attack  upon  me  is  a 
mere  pretext  in  order  to  damage  the  present  Moderator  of  the  Presby- 
terian General  Assembly.  And  then,  when  his  real  object  and  his 
sophistries  and  misquotations  are  exposed,  he  begins  to  whine  about 
gross  personalities."  I  think  my  speech  will  show  how  utterly  un- 
founded is  this  unworthy  view  of  Mr.  McCune,  and  how  nothing  but 
an  earnest  desire  to  defend  the  time  honored  principles  of  my  church 
has  prompted  me  to  the  course  I  have  taken. 

The  defeat  of  the  exercise  of  the  Episcopal  power  of  the  church,  by 
confounding  a  constitutional  right  with  a  mere  deliberative  point  of 
order,  so  wrenching  from  church  courts  one  of  their  chiefest  functions^ 
and,  in  times  of  trouble,  either  flooding  the  church  with  a  stream  ol 
formal  forensic  prosecutions,  or  compelling  faithful  men  to  sit  silent, 
while  a  counter  stream  of  corruption  advances  unchecked,  has  a  history 
not  soon  to  be  forgotten.  It  is  enough  here  simply  to  note,  that  from 
the  very  beginning  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  until  the  year  1822, 
this  Episcopal  power  was  not  only  undisputed,  but  constantly  exercised 
by  all  the  church  courts.  Presbyteries,  Synods  and  Assemblies,  and 
preeminently  in  our  Supreme  Court  in  the  years  1758,  1762, 1763,  1798, 
1806,  1810, 'l830,  1835,  and  1837.  (Baird's  Digest,  pp.  621,  626,  632, 
642,  647,  649,  652,  662,  664,  665,  (89,  2).  The  attempt  first  to  "evade" 
it  in  1822,  then  to  "deny"  it  in  the  memorable  1834,  led  to  troubles 
which  have  required  forty  years  to  heal  them.  Enough  to  say,  that 
the  Presbyteries  of  the  Undivided  Church  affirmed  by  their  delegates 
in  the  Assemblies  of  1835  and  1837  the  importance  and  constitutionality 


of  this  Episcopal  power,  and  so  firmly  had  it  become  established,  after 
a  short  but  sharp  contest,  that  even  the  minority  in  1837  recog- 
nized it  as  just  and  entered  into  it.  (Baird's  Digest,  pp,  666,  674, 
679,  681,  683,  688,  692,  713,  745,  749,  764,  767.)  The  root 
question  was  simply  this,  "Is  it  competent  to  any  Presbytery  to 
take  up  and  examine  any  printed  publication  and  to  pronounce  it 
to  be  erroneous,  or  dangerous,  if  they  so  found  it,  without,  in 
the  first  place,  commencing  a  formal  prosecution  of  the  author, 
even  be  it  known  and  admitted  that  the  author  is  a  member  of  its 
own  body." — (Baird's  Digest,  p.  665).  The  evasion  and  denial  of  this 
right  sundered  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  will  do  so  again  if  per- 
sisted in.  It  is  time  for  Presbyteries  to  learn  that  a  constitutional 
right,  inscribed  in  the  organic  law  of  the  church,  and  fenced  by  writ- 
ten parliamentary  rule,  cannot,  with  impunity,  be  swept  away  under 
cover  of  a  point  of  order,  suddenly  raised  by  a  momentary  majority, 
and  pushed  through  under  the  plea  that  the  grounds  and  reasons  of 
action  cannot  be  discussed  until  either  a  committee  of  inquiry  report, 
or  a  forensic  process  is  begun. 

With  these  explanations,  I  submit  the  speech  to  the  attention  of  the 
Presbyterian  public,  in  general,  and  to  ray  ministerial  bretheren  in 
particular. 


IDEP^E2^TSE 


PRESBYTERIAN  DOCTRINE  AND  ORDER 


AGAINST  THE 


FALSE  UNIONISM  AND  LIBERALISM  OF  THE  TIMES. 


Mr.  Moderator  and  Brethren  of  the  Presbytery  : 

(^ll^l^l  design  to  offer  sorae  considerations  in  support  of  this  resolution. 
Its  subject  matter  is  pressed  upon  us  from  many  sides.  The 
demand  urged  upon  this  Presbytery  for  action  of  some  sort, 
is  both  loud  and  earnest.  The  "  ripple  ''  has  become  a  tidal 
wave.  From  the  South  and  from  the  North,  from  the  East  and  from 
the  West,  we  are  called  upon  to  bear  our  testimony,  and  perform  our 
duty  in  the  premises.  As  has  been  remarked,  "  the  most  conspicuous 
church  on  the  Ohio,  at  this  time,  is  one  of  the  smallest.  It  is  called 
'  The  Union  Christian  Church  of  Liu  wood  and  Mt.  Lookout.'  "  (*)  Tl^ 
wide-spread  discussion  concerning  this  movement,  as  to  its  nature  and 
aim,  the  interest  taken  in  it  by  the  press,  by  individuals,  by  the  church 
at  large,  and  the  prmciples  and  practices  involved  in  it,  are  such  that 
this  Presbytery  can  not  afford  to  pass  it  by.  From  the  relations  into 
which  I  have  been  brought  in  connection  with  this  whole  matter,  I  feel 
it  my  duty  to  present  it  formally  before  this  body.  I  therefore  respect- 
fully submit  to  my  brethren  of  the  Presbytery  the  following  facts  and 
considerations  in  support  of  the  resolution  I  offered  : 

THE  PRINCIPLES  INVOLVED. 

I.  The  Rev.  Mr.  McCune,  being  a  member  of  Cincinnati  Presby- 
tery, and  still  under  the  common  ordination  vows  that  bind  us  all, 
holds  and  teaches  that  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a 
distinctive  denomination,  framed  by  denominational  law  to  maintain 

*  Here,  I  was  arrested,  the  first  time,  and  Preamble,  Revolution,  and 
Speech,  ruled  out.     (See  Introduction,  p.  4.)    T.  H.  S. 


its  distinctive  and  peculiar  "  doctrines,  ordinances  and  church  polity," 
has  no  scriptural  "  right  to  exist."  (f)  And  this  he  does,  first,  by  a 
general  and  sweeping  condemnation  of  all  existing  evangelical  denom- 
inations, as  such,  and  second,  by  a  condemnation,  in  particular,  of  the 
Presbyterian  denomination,  as  such. 

1.  In  general,  he  holds  and  teaches  publicly  that  *'  existing  denom- 
inational divisions,"  and  "the  organization  of  different  denominations," 
limiting  universal  organic  unity,  by  the  principle  of  particular  exclu- 
sion of  ministers  not  subscribing  to  particular  denominational  creeds, 
are  without  warrant  from  either  "Christ"  or  "His  inspired  Apostles," 
and  are,  therefore,  " unscriptural,"  "anti-scriptural,"  opposed  to  the 
"precept"  of  Christ,  "sectarian,"  "essentially  sinful,"  "a  manifest 
reproach  of  the  cause  of  Christ,"  "a  lasting  excuse  for  the  irreligious, 
careless,  and  worldly,"  an  "enforcing"  of  creeds  which"  require 
their  members  to  receive  as  truth,  and  perform  as  duty,  what  is  no 
part  of  the  common  faith,"  "  bewildering  sincere  inquirers,"  an 
"advantage  to  Popery  and  Infidelity,"  "directly  contrary  to  Scrip- 
ture," "hindering  the  conversion  of  the  world,"  and  a  "usurpation  of 
Christ's  prerogative."  All  this  is  predicated,  not  merely  of  "  supernu- 
mary  churches"  multiplied  in  small  localities,  nor  merely  of  the  im- 
perfections of  denominations,  but  of  denominational  divisions,  as  such, 
i.  e.,  of  the  separate  organization  of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ  into 
distinctive  denominational  parts.  His  language  is,  "ive  shall  aim  to 
show  the  anti-scriptural,  wasteful,  enfeebling  nature  of  existing  denom- 
inational divisions,  and  persuade  Christians  eventually  to  organize  instead 
but  one  church  in  one  place." — (The  Christian  Unity,  editorial,  Nov. 
8,  1873).  And  again,  "The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  left  on  record 
no  provision  in  the  New  Testament  for  the  organzation  of  different 
denominations." — (Declaration,  p.  3.)  And  again,  "Inspired  Apos- 
tles never  organized  different  denominations  in  any  community." — 
(Hid.  p.  3).  And  again,  "  God  in  his  providence  urgently  calls 
upon  all  of  Christ's  disciples  to  make  immediate  prayerful  prepara- 
tion for  the  united  New  Testament  organization  of  the  church  in  every 
place." — (Editorial,  Nov.  3,  1873.)    See  also  Prospectus,  pages  1,  2,  3.) 

2.  In  particular.  He  holds  and  teaches  publicly  that  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  being  a  distinctive  organization,  or  "sect,"  as  he  calls 
it,  built  on  denominational  law,  and  limited  in  ministerial  fellowship 
by  virtue  of  that  law,  is  an  organization,  in  so  far  as  it  is  separate  and 
distinct  from  others  in  its  peculiar  doctrine  and  polity,  justly  obnoxious 
to  the  whole  catalogue  of  criticisms  above  named,  and  therefore  having 

tiiere,  I  was  arrested,  the  second  time,  and  Preamble  and  Speech,  ruled 
out.     (See  Introduction,  p.  5.)     T.  H.  S. 


10 

no  scriptural  right  to  exist  as  such.  It  is  included,  manifestly,  among 
the  others  whose  denomiuationalism  is  so  forcibly  condemned.  Not- 
withstanding its  common  Christianity,  which  he  admits  to  be  the 
common  substance  of  all  evangelical  churches,  yet,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a 
peculiar  denomination  built  for  the  maintenance  of  what  is  peculiar 
and  distinctive  in  Presbyterianism,  as  such,  it  also  is  anti-scriptural, 
sectarian,  essentially  sinful,  a  manifest  reproach  to  the  cause  of  Christ, 
and  everything  else  of  this  character  already  quoted,  and  applied  to 
all  denominations  in  general.  Upon  a  false  interpretation  of  the 
expression,  "Receive  ye  one  another,  as  Christ  also  received  us,  to  the 
glory  of  God,"  Rom.  15 :  7  a  dictum  probans,  indeed,  for  open  com- 
munion, enjoining  also  the  fellowship  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  the  one 
church  of  Christ,  and  introduced  by  the  Apostle  as  the  practical 
conclusion  of  a  discussion  on  things  purely  indifferent,  but  having  no 
reference  to  ecclesiastical  courts  or  public  teachers,  upon  this  he  erects 
what  he  calls,  in  his  work  on  Organic  Union,  "  the  Divine  law  of  organ- 
ization f  (Organic  Union  p.  123,)  a  law  which,  (Declaration,  p.  4,)  is 
emphasised  as  a  "precept"  that  "regmres'' the  admission  of  every 
minister  of  Christ,  of  whatever  denomination,  into  any  Presbytery  or 
church  court  in  the  world,  where  he  may  choose  to  apply  for  admission. 
This  precept,  he  says,  "  applies  in  the  case  of  mhiisters  as  well 
as  in  the  case  of  members,  and  no  one  who  gives  scriptural  evidence 
that  he  is  a  minister  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  should  be  excluded 
from  membership  in  any  Presbytery,  Conference,  etc.,  by  any  denom- 
inational law."  That  is,  he  holds  that  this  passage  necessitates  th^ 
destruction  of  existing  denominations,  as  such,  and  the  amalga- 
mation of  all  into  external  ecclesiastical  uniformity.  Toleration 
in  the  same  body  of  all  denominational  differences,  free  unhindered 
proclamation  of  the  same,  inclusion  of  Methodist,  Baptist,  Presbyterian, 
Episcopalian,  Lutheran,  and  Congregational  ministers,  in  the  same 
ecclesiastical  court,  backed  by  the  right  of  private  judgment  and 
guarantee  of  free  speech,  and  sheltered  by  Christian  forbearance,  this, 
he  says,  is  the  meaning  of  Rom.  15:  7,  and  is,  what  he  calls,  "the 
Divine  law  of  organization"  for  the  Church  of  Christ,  in  all  ages.  More 
explicitly,  he  asserts  that  no  denomination  has  aiiy  right  to  exist  as  a 
"distinct  organization,"  if  not  founded  on  this  alleged  "Divine  law  of 
organization."  I  quote  his  words,  "  ten  years  "  old  :  "  A  denomination 
has  no  right  to  exist  as  a  distinct  organization,  unless  she  is  organized 
according  to  the  Divine  law  of  organization."  (Organic  Union,  p.  123  ) 
What  this  law  of  organization  is,  we  have  already  seen  and  quoted 
from  the  Declaration  p.  4.  It  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  non-exclu- 
sion, i.  e.  it  is  Mr.  McCune's  interpretation  of  Rom.  15:  7,  as  applied 


11 

to  ecclesiastical  courts  and  public  teachers  in  their  relation  to  the 
preservation  of  the  truth  of  God.  In  brief,  Mr.  McCune  makes 
non-exclusion  from  ecclesiastical  courts  and  pulpits  one  of  the  nec- 
essary marks  of  a  true  scriptural  organization,  and  of  the  true  church. 
This  is  a  novelty  indeed.  Each  evangelical  denomination  must  receive 
the  ministers  of  every  other  similar  denomination,  Avith  all  their  antag- 
onisms, and  so  destroy  the  distinctive  character  of  all  denominational  law. 
Any  evangelical  minister,  no  matter  how  opposed  to  Presbyterian  faith 
and  order,  has  a  perfect  right  to  be  a  pastor  in  any  Presbyterian  pulpit, 
and  a  standing  member  of  any  Presbyterian  court  in  the  land. 

But  now,  according  to  Mr.  McCune,  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  not 
a  Union  church  of  this  stamp,  but  insists  upon  her  denominational  law, 
not  receiving  to  her  ecclesiastical  courts  those  who  can  not  sincerely 
approve  and  subscribe  the  Westminster  standards.  She  requires,  there- 
fore, more  than  Mr.  McCune's  "Divine  law  of  organization  "  demands, 
and  by  consequence,  in  the  very  language  of  Mr.  McCune,  "  has  no 
right  to  exist  as  a  distinct  organization,"  because  not  "organized  accor- 
ding to  the  divine  law  of  organization."  "  I  do  not  believe,"  says  Mr. 
McCune,  "that  the  Presbyterian  Churches  are  Christian  Union  organi- 
zations ;  I  believe  they  ougJit  to  be ;  I  believe  that  any  minister,  on 
application,  should  be  received  as  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  and 
who  gives  to  Presbytery  satisfactory  scriptural  evidence  that  Christ 
has  received  him  as  His  minister.  The  Presbyterian  Church  requires 
more  than  this,"  (Commercial,  February  9, 1876.)  Therefore  he  objects. 
The  conclusion  is  simply  irresistible  that,  according  to  Mr.  McCune's 
convictions,  the  Pi'esbyterian  denomination,  as  a  denomination,  built 
on  its  .distinctive  constitution,  and  fortified  by  its  distinctive  denom- 
inational law,  "has  no  right  to  exist."  "  Denominationalism,"  he  tells 
us,  is  "sectarianism;"  because  a  "sect"  is  an  organization  that 
"  excludes"  any  one  Christian  minister  while  a  "not  sect"  is  the  church 
that  "includes"  every  Christian  minister.  "  Sectarianism,"  says  Mr. 
McCune,  "  is  a  hurtful  excrescence.  I  am  opposed  to  denominationalisra, 
or  to  use  a  more  expressive  term,  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  all  sectari" 
anism,  and  I  am  just  as  much  opposed  to  Presbyterian  sectarianism  as 
to  any  other.  I  am  opposed  to  the  division  of  the  church  into  denom- 
inations." (Commercial,  Feb.  9,  1876).  The  Presbyterian  Church, 
therefore,  being  a  "denomination,"  built  upon  denominational  law, 
with  denominational  standards,  carries  upon  her  face,  and  in  her  body, 
"  a  hurtful  excrescence,"  in  so  far  forth  as  she  is  distinctively  Presby- 
terian. She  has  a  right  to  exist  as  a  Christian  Union  Church,  if  she 
will,  without  the  peculiarities  of  her  organic  constitution,  but  no  right 
to  exist  with  them,  for  she  thus  becomes  "auti-scriptural,"  "essentially 


12 

sinful,"  a  "  manifest  reproach  to  the  cause  of  Christ"  and  "  a  usurper 
of  Christ's  prerogative."  The  essence  of  her  crime  is  that  "she  enforces' 
her  "  peculiarities,  contrary  to  conscience,  as  a  matter  of  sectarian 
law."  (Gazette,  January  11,  1876).  What  adds  importance  to  these 
views,  is  the  fact  that  Mr.  McCune,  in  his  reply  of  November  15,  1873, 
to  Dr.  Montfort's  strictures  in  the  Herald  and  Presbyter,  affirms  that 
his  (Mr.  McCune's)  views  "are  not  peculiar,"  as  charged,  but  are 
"the  same  views  on  this  subject  which  are  held  by  a  large  number  of  the 
members  of  Dr.  Montfort's  own  Presbytery,  including  some  of  its 
most  influential  members."  (Christian  Unity,  November  15,  18-73, 
p.  4,)  views  Avhich  he  says,  he  proclaimed  for  "ten  years"  and  the 
"  liberty"  to  teach  which  he  "enjoyed  unquestioned  until  Dr.  Skinner 
made,"  what  he  calls,  "  his  attack."  (Commercial,  February  9,  1876). 
These  views  Mr.  McCune  holds  to  be  just  as  important  as  the  salvation 
of  souls.  Speaking  of  himself  in  this  book  on  "Organic  Union,"  he 
says,  "  the  writer  of  these  pages  can  never  consent  to  preach  the 
gospel  in  any  denomination  upon  condition  that  he  shall  not  advocate 
certain  principles  which  he  believes  in  his  heart  are  the  truths  of  the 
gospel.  He  believes  tliat  the  great  principles  upon  which  the  Organic 
Union  of  the  church  must  be  consummated  are  just  as  important  as  tlie 
salvation  of  precious  souls.''    (Organic  Union  p.  150). 

For  the  sake  of  these  he  seeks  a  destruction  of  Presbyterian  denom- 
inational law  by  a  revision  of  the  Presbyterian  standards,  or  a  new 
Book.  Justifying  his  position,  he  says,  "  I  regard  the  Presbyterian 
Church  with  no  popish  veneration,  I  do  not  consider  her  standards  in- 
fallible. I  deem  it  lawful  to  propose  revision,  &c.  I  regard  it  perfectly 
ruleable  to  propose  changes  in  her  standards  in  the  interest  of  Christian 
Union,  to  memorialize  the  General  Assembly  to  this  end,  and  to  seek 
to  imbue  the  whole  denomination  with  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Test- 
ament on  the  subject  of  Christian  Union.  I  am  in  favor  of  a  plain 
explicit  creed,  that  shall  be  unmistakably  evangelical  as  a  condition 
of  ministerial  fellowship."  (Gazette  January  11,1876).  What  this 
means,  every  Presbyterian  will  understand  in  the  light  of  the  quota- 
tions already  made.  It  simply  means  the  destruction  of  the  distinc- 
tive constitutional  principles  of  the  Presbyterian- Church.  It  aims  at 
no  less  than  the  abolition  of  the  peculiarities  of  her  creed,  government 
and  discipline,  the  overthrow  of  her  polity,  for  the  sake  of  Pan-Union, 
before  which  even  Pan-Presbyterianism  must  fade  away.  It  means 
the  repeal  of  her  denominational  law,  requiring  subscription  to  the 
Westminister  standards  as  a  term  of  ecclesiastical  fellowship ;  it 
means  no  right  to  "enforce"  her  distinctive  creed;  'it  means  an  ec- 
clesiastical court  without   check  or  controlment  of  its  members;    it 


13 

means  a  protest  against  the  administration  of  Presbyterian  discipline 
and  law ;  it  means  the  proscription  of  any  creed  beyond  a  mere  min- 
imum statement  of  a  few  common  truths  which  nearly  every  heretic 
might  accept,  and  which  it  is  impossible  to  dispute  without  denying 
the  very  existence  of  Christianity ;  it  means  that  the  church  has  no 
right  to  increase  her  creed  by  any  brief  statement  framed  to  meet  and 
transfix  any  overshadowing  error,  that  may  arise  to  threaten  her  faith. 
"  No  true  Protestant,"  says  Mr.  McCune,  "needs  to  be  convinced  of 
the  fahity  of  every  argument  which  is  framed  to  prove  that  it  has  become 
necessary  to  enlarge  the  creed  of  the  Primitive  Church."  (Org.  Un., 
p.  47).  In  short,  it  means  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  no  right 
to  enact  or  enforce  any  terms  of  fellowship,  that  would  exclude  from 
her  pale  any  Christian  Minister  who  believes  it  to  be  his  duty  to  sup- 
press, drop  off,  or  fight  against  the  distinctive  differences  of  her  con- 
fession and  government. 

THE   PRACTICES  INVOLVED. 

II.  And  now,  Mr.  McCune,  being  still  a  member  of  Cincinnati 
Presbytery,  and  not  merely  for  "  local  convenience,"  as  some  sup- 
pose, but  for  the  avowed  "  purpose"  (Declaration  p.  5)  of  carrying  into 
practical  effect  the  foregoing  principles,  has  been  instrumental  in 
''permanently"  organizing,  as  a  standing  protest  against  the  "  essen- 
tial sinfulness"  of  the  Presbyterian  and  all  other  evangelical  denom- 
inations as  such,  a  new  Non-Presbyterian,  Non-Congregational,  and 
anti-denominational  society  at  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  in  the  bosom 
of  Cincinnati  Presbytery. 

This  organization  was  effected  on  November  7th,  8th,  10th  and  24th, 
1875,  in  violation  of  the  organic  law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in 
the  following  particulars,  to-wit : 

1.  By  "mutually  concurring"  with  certain  persons  to  promote  and 
form  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Society,  prepare  and  publish  to 
the  world  its  creed,  basis,  preliminary  statements,  declaration  and 
regulations  of  expediency,  by  givmg  his  presence  and  counsel  at  the 
dates  of  organization  above  mentioned,  and  by  "  desiring  that  such 
organization  might  be  effected."     (Phil.  Presbyterian,  Feb.  26,  1876). 

2.  By  recognizing  as  members  of  the  new  church,  members  of  five 
different  evangelical  denominations  still  undismissed,  and  in  covenant 
with  their  respective  churches. 

3.  By  dropping  off  the  Constitutional  titles,  "elders"  and  "dea- 
cons," and  countenancing  the  appointment  of  mere  unordained  com- 
mitteemen, complimented  with  the  title  of  "overseers,"  to  exercise 


14 

spiritual  jurisdiction  in  the  so  called  church,  and  for  deacons  "  certain 
other  brethren"  having  a  "treasurer," 

4.  By  substituting  for  the  Westminster  standards  the  general  creed 
of  the  World's  Evangelical  Alliance,  laying  down  a  new  "  basis  of  fel- 
lowship "  in  reference  to  the  reception  of  ministers,  adopting  certain 
"  regulations  of  expediency  "  in  place  of  the  Westminister  form  of  gov- 
ernment, and  announcing  in  a  "  Declaration  "  the  principles  on  which 
the  new  society  is  founded  and  which  it  is  intended  to  maintain. 
Every  thing  distinctively  Presbyterian  has  been  thrown  overboard. 

5.  By  formally  accepting  a  call  to  become  the  Pastor  of  the  new 
society  without  the  leave  of  his  Presbytery. 

6.  By  adopting  a  new  distinctive  title,  "the  Union  Christian 
Church  of  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,"  and  claiming  it  to  be  in  its 
organization  and  principles  after  the  pattern  of  the  Apostolic  Church. 

7.  By  convoking  December  10,  1875,  through  his  instrumentality, 
an  irresponsible  council  of  ministers  of  different  denominations,  un- 
delegated by  any  evangelical  churches,  to  convene  on  December  15, 
1875,  in  order  to  re-examine  him  in  Theology,  but  not  in  church  gov- 
ernment, and  install  him  as  pastor  over  the  new  society  of  his  own 
creation,  without  leave  of  his  Presbytery,  and  thus  secure  a  public 
recognition  of  the  new  society  as  a  scripturally  organized  church  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "Basis"  passim:  Account  of  council  in 
Gazette,  December  18,  1875,  Herald  and  Presbyter,  January  5,  1876. 
Gazette,  January  10,  12  and  14,  and  February  7,  8  and  10,  187^ 
Invitation  to  council  December  10,  1875. 

What  adds  to  the  gravity  of  this  procedure,  is  the  fact  that  not  only 
in  its  inception,  nature  and  aim,  is  it  a  violation  of  the  principles  of 
our  government  and  discipline,  and  of  the  decisions  of  our  supreme 
tribunal,  but  that  it  was  a  premeditated  plan,  and  has  been  encour- 
aged and  countenanced  by  members  of  Cincinnati  Presbytery,  some 
of  whom  even  sat  in  the  council  and  sympathized  with  the  movement. 
There  is  evidence  to  show  that  many  people  of  L,  and  Mt.  L.  refused 
to  join  in  the  heterogenous  mixture — evidence  to  prove  that  Mr,  Mc- 
Cune  and  others  "mutually  concurred"  to  work  up  just  such  an  ab- 
normal institution  a  year  before  it  was  begun.  There  is  most  decisive 
evidence  to  show  that  it  was  not  a  "provisional"  but  a  "permanent" 
organization,  the  latter  word  having  been  substituted  for  the  former 
by  the  council  at  Mr.  McCune's  request.  There  is  proof  that  the  or- 
ganization was  a  standing  protest  against  the  right  of  evangelical 
denominations,  as  such,  to  exist.  It  was  the  fruit  of  the  anti-denom- 
inational convention  of  Suffolk,  Va.,  May  1875,  of  which  Mr.  McCune 
was  Chairman,  and  previously  of  the  Cincinnati  Convention,  October, 


15 

1874,  and  it  was  framed  upon  the  "Basis"  there  adopted  in  the  ad- 
dress to  all  Christian  ministers  and  churches  in  North  America,  the 
topmost  signature  to  which  is  that  of  Mr.  McCune  himself. 

What  adds  still  further  importance  to  this  new  movement  is  the  /Arj- 
fact  that  it  has  been  openly  paUiated  by  the  Herald  and  Presbyter.  "7^, 
Dr.  Monfort,  (H.  and  P.,  January  5, 1876)  patronizes  the  new  depart-  ■ 
ure  of  Mr.  McCune,  saying  pacifyingly :  "In  all  this  there  is  not  much 
cause  jor  alarm!"  and  adding,  "Independent  churches  are  no  new 
things  under  the  sun  in  this  country,  even  independent  Presbyterian 
churches,"  as  if  there  ever  was  any  thing  under  the  sun  like  this  new 
society  in  this  country,  or  in  any  other !  It  is  not  a  "  Congregational 
Church,"  for  it  ignores  the  Westminster  confession,  which  is  in  force 
in  the  Congregational  Churches,  so  that  distinctive  doctrine  is  not 
sacrificed.  "  It  is  not  an  independent  Presbyterian  church,"  for  it  has 
thrown  the  standards  and  the  eldership  overboard.  The  L.  and  Mt.  L. 
church,  says  Mr.  McCune,  "  is  not  a  Presbyterian  church  and  is  not 
under  Presbyterian  law  at  all."— (Commercial  Feb.  9,  1876.)  It  is 
sui  generis,  and  a  protest  by  a  Presbyterian  minister  against  his  own 
denomination,  and  gotten  up  in  violation  of  the  organic  law  of  his 
church.  ' '  There  is  no  harm"  says  Dr.  Monfort,  "  in  3fr.  Mc  Cune's  taking 
charge  of  such  a  church!  Moreover,  his  peculiar  vieivs  are  not  new  with 
/iim."— (H.  and  P.,  January  5,  1876).  And  this,  after  saying  (H.  and 
P.,  November  6,  1873)  that  Mr.  McCune's  views  are  "  very  peculiar," 
and  that  he  "  aims  at  a  great  change  in  the  churches." 

If  anything  further  is  needed  to  show  what  importance  is  to  be 
attached  to  this  •  procedure,  and  whither  we  are  drifting,  it  will  be 
enough  to  quote  from  the  CampbelUte  Chridian  Quarterly  Review,  of 
January,  1876,  the  following  passage,  which  one  might  take  for  the 
ipsisima  verba  of  Mr.  McCune  himself:  "Every  effort  to  build  up  de- 
nominations is  a  positive  and  open  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  for 
which  there  can  be  no  adequate  apology,  and  such  effort  must  finally 
meet  its  due  reward.  ^  *  *  *  The  whole  system  of  de- 
nominationalism  is  wrong.  It  is  a  pity  that  another  should  ever  unite 
with  them.  Better  that  all  outside  of  these  should  continue  outside, 
etc.,  entirely  independent  of  these  organizations,  than  they  should 
strengthen  the  existing  divisions.  Christ  never  formed  the  various 
denominations,  on  their  various  and  conflicting  creeds.  What  remains 
to  be  done  then  to  obey  the  law  of  Jesus,  'Let  there  be  no  divisions 
among  you,'  is  to  abandon  all  sectarian  names,  and  dissolve  all  secta- 
rian organizations,  and  to  organize  as  a  church  of  Christ  and  assume 
that  name."— (pages  104,  110). 


16 

COMDEMNATION   OF   THE   PRINCIPLES. 

III.  But  I  proceed,  now,  in  the  third  place,  to  show  that  the  prin- 
ciples of  Mr.  McCune  are  iu  open  contravention  of  the  standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  her  binding  decisions,  as  to  doctrine, 
government  and  discipline. 

1.  As  to  Mr.  McCune's  union  principles,  the  "system  of  union," 
which  the  Presbyterian  Church  holds,  repudiates  his  theory.  She  be- 
gins her  standards  by  announcing  to  the  world  "the  system  of  union, 
and  form  of  government  and  discipline"  she  has  adopted,  and  gives 
lier  reasons  for  the  same.  In  her  chapter  on  "preliminary  principles," 
she  recognizes  the  right  of  different  evangelical  denominations  to 
exist  as  such,  and  does  it  upon  the  broad  ground  of  the  rights  of  con- 
science, and  of  private  judgement,  imperfection  of  knowledge,  room 
for  differences  of  interpretation,  lack  of  perfect  light,  and  duty  at  the 
same  time  to  maintain  the  peace,  unity  and  purity  of  the  church,  and 
to  forbear  with  each  other  in  charity.  The  very  arguments  Mr.  McCune 
takes  to  prove  evangelical  denominations  unwarranted  and  essentially 
sinful,  the  Presbyterian  Church  takes  to  prove  their  scriptural  exped- 
iency and  propriety,  and  their  moral  right  to  exist.  Listen  to  her 
words,  as  she  exhibits  her  "system  of  union:"  1.  "God  alone  is 
Lord  of  the  Conscience,  etc."  2.  "  Every  Christian  Church  or  Union, 
or  Association  of  particular  churches,  is  entitled  to  declare  the  terms 
of  admission  into  its  own  communion,  and  the  qualifications  of^its 
ministers  and  members,  as  well  sts  the  whole  system  of  government 
which  Christ  hath  appointed."  3.  "There  are  truths  and  forms,  With 
respect  to  which  men  of  good  character  and  principles  may  differ,"  and 
as  to  these,  "it  is  the  duty  of  both  private  Christians  and  Societies  to 
exercise  mutual  forbearance,"  and  so  on.  In  accordance  with  this  she 
recognizes  as  more  or  less  agreeable  to  the  scriptures  various  orthodox 
denominations,  while  maintaining  that  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
wherein  it  differs  distinctly  from  the  doctrine  and  order  of  all  others,  is 
nearer  the  full  truth  of  Christ  in  his  revealed  word,  and  nearer  the 
true  form  of  Apostolic  organization. — (Form  .of  Gov.  Book  I,  Cap.  1, 
sees.  1,  2,  and  5.  Cap.  8,  sec.  1.  Moore's  Digest,  pp.  43,  44,  51,  120.) 
The  rights  of  conscience  are  not  to  be  sacrificed  to  mere  external  Pan- 
union,  nor  for  the  sake  of  these  rights,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the 
church  to  be  turned  into  a  Babel  of  conflicting  beliefs,  or  a  common 
pool  of  indifference  to  all  belief. 

2.  Tlie  denominational  law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  directly 
opposed  to  Mr.  McCune's  so  called  "Divine  law  of  organization."  It 
puts  truth  before  union,  and  not  union  before  truth;  conscience  before 


17 

indiflerence,  and  not  indifference  before  conscience.  It  does  not  con- 
found, as  some  do,  the  doctrine  of  the  "communion  of  saints"  with 
external  organization.  The  Presbyterian  Church,  while  holding  to  the 
first,  still  insists  upon  her  denominational  law,  and  properly  excludes 
from  official  trust  within  her  pale  all  who  are  conscientiously  op])osed 
to  her  distinctive  faith  and  order,  which  she  as  conscientiously  believes 
is  the  nearest  and  the  best  expression  of  the  Truth  of  God.  There- 
fore does  she  say:  "  Although  we  are  willing  to  receive  all  whom  Christ 
has  received  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  admit  to  fellowship  in  sacred 
ordinances  all  such  as  we  have  grounds  to  believe  Christ  will  at  last 
admit  to  the  kingdom  of  Heaven ;  yet  we  are  undoubtedly  obliged  to 
take  care  that  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  be  kept  pure  and 
uncorrupt  among  us,  and  so  handed  down  to  our  posterity." — 
(Digest,  p.  47).  And  so  does  she  demand  that  "  no  Presbytery  shall 
license  or  ordain  to  the  work  of  the  ministry  any  candidate,  until,  etc. 

*  *  *  and  he  declare  his  acceptance  of  the  Westminster 
confession  and  catechisms,  as  the  confession  of  his  faith,  and  promise 
subjection  to  the  Presbyterian  plan  of  government,  and  the  Westmin- 
ster directory."  Solemn  voavs  to  this  end  she  imposes  on  all  her  minis- 
ters, elders,  and  deacons,  which  they  are  required  to  take. — (Form  of 
Gov.  book  I,  Cap.  13,  Sec.  4;  Cap.  14,  Sec.  7;  Cap.  15,  Sec.  12.)  Min- 
isters who  cannot  adopt  her  standards  are  not  to  be  received. — (Digest, 
p.  57.)  Tiiose  who  grow  tired  of  her  system  and  join  other  bodies  are  to 
'be  "stricken  from  the  roll.'— (Digest  pp.  169,  617).  She  says  her  creed 
and  polity  are  "  absolutely  requisite  to  the  settled  peace  oi  the  church, 
and  to  the  happy  and  orderly  existence  of  Christain  communion," 
and  that  "  without  the  aid  of  the  confessions.  Christian  fellowship  can 
only  exist  in  a  very  limited  degree,  and  the  disorder  of  the  Corin- 
thian Church,  condemned  by  the  Apostle,  would  be  realized ;  /  am  of 
Pavl,  and  I  of  Apollos."' — (Digest,  p.  54.)  She  further  declares  that 
if  her  ministers  traduce  her  standards  they  shall  be  subjected  to  that 
salutary  discipline  which  hath  for  its  object  the  peace  and  purity  of 
the  chui-ch."— (Digest,  p.  54.)  This  is  iier  denominational  law,  which 
Mr.  McCune  would  instantly  put  out  of  the  way,  if  he  could. 

To  crown  all,  from  the  very  first,  in  every  period  of  her  history,  and 
in  every  proposition  for  union  with  other  bodies,  she  has  held  aloft 
this  organic  law,  as  the  indispensible  condition  upon  which  union  could 
be  effected,  just  because  she  believed  her  peculiar  standards  to  be  dis- 
tinctive of  the  truth  of  God's  word  as  to  faith  and  order,  as  no  other 
standards  are.  They  rest  in  her  heart  as  the  latest,  ripest,  clearest,  most 
precious  fruit  of  the  Reformation.  A  palmary  argument  it  is  that  the 
late  Reunion  between  Old  and  New  Schools  was  after  long  battle  con- 


18 

summated  on  the  adoption  of  her  standards,  "pure  and  simple,"  which 
Mr.  McCune  has  now  thrown  overboard  from  the  church  of  his  own 
creation. 

Signal  and  emphatic  is  her  declaration  that  "  the  Confession  of  Faith 
shall  continue  to  be  received  and  adopted,  etc.,"  and  that  the  govern- 
ment and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
shall  he  approved  as  containing  the  principles  and  rules  of  our  polity." — 
(Digest,  p.  91),  announcing  at  the  same  time  that  neither  Antinom- 
ianism,  nor  Arminiauism,  nor  Fatalism,  nor  Pehigianism  in  Doctrine, 
nor  Prelacy,  in  Polity,  shall  find  a  place  to  flourish  in  her  fold ;  all  of 
which  Mr.  McCune  would  allow  to  enter,  and  the  defense  of  the  teach- 
ing of  which  he  would  protect  in  the  same  court,  under  his  non-exclud- 
ing "Divine  law  of  organization.''  'J he  "basis  of  Reunion,"  viz,  the 
standards  pure  and  simple,  she  has  solemnly  declared  to  be  of  "bind- 
ing force,"— (Dig.,  p.  96),  and  raised  f 5, 000,000,  besides  uncounted 
anthems  of  praise,  as  a  token  of  gratitude  to  God  for  the  triumph  of  her 
denominational  law. — Dig.,  pp.  45,  51,  54,  96).  She  "  binds "  herself 
irrevocably  to  old  "ancestral  Calvinism." — (Dig.,  p.  85),  and,  to  com- 
pose the  fears  of  any  who  anticipated  movements  hereafter,  for  either 
"revision"  or  a  "new  confession,"  her  joint  committee  reported  to  the 
assembly  that  "neither  branch  of  the  church  desires  a  new  Confession  of 
Faith." — (Dig.,  p.  73.)  Thus  did  the  Reunion,  vocal  with  the  conspiring 
voices  of  250  Presbyteries,  plant  itself  upon  the  enforcement  of  denom- 
inational law,  including  all  who  sincerely  approved  her  glorious  symbols, 
and  excluding  all  who  could  not  in  conscience  and  good  faith  teach  ^nd 
practice  her  distinctive  doctrine  and  order.  And  thus  did  the  grand 
old  Presbyterian  Church  trust  herself,  with  clasped  hands,  to  the  truth- 
fulness and  fidelity  of  the  men  who  entered  into  that  solemn  com- 
pact. 

It  is  this  basis  and  this  organic  law,  recorded  as  very  title-deeds 
on  our  statute  books,  and  the  enforcement  of  our  distinctive  j)eculiar-. 
ities,  that  Mr.  McCune's  "  Divine  law  of  organization"  arraigns  and 
denounces  as  ''divisive,"  "sectarian,"  and  "exclusive,"  in  an  odious 
sense.  It  is  this  he  throws  aside,  while  still  a  member  of  the  Presby- 
tery, wrecking  both  the  Eldership  and  the  Standards  in  his  new  soci- 
ety for  the  sake  of  "committeemen,"  a  minimum  creed,  and  some 
"  regulations  of  expediency ;"  and  this,  too,  in  the  face  of  the  out- 
standing fact,  that  at  the  very  time  of  the  Reunion  the  Reunited 
Church,  of  which  he  was  a  member,  "enforced"  her  denominational 
law,  and  "  ordered"  that  mere  ordained  committee  men,  complimented 
as  overseers,  and  not  under  vows  to  her  standards,  should  disappear 
entirely  from  her  organization  within  five  years,  and  that  no  churches 


19 

having  such  unscriptural  substitutes  for  oflficers  should  be  "  re- 
ceived."—(Dig.,  pp.  63,  (2)  92,  II  (2).  And  yet,  with  these  facts 
before  hitn,  and  in  full  view  of  Mr.  McCune's  contravention  of  them 
all,  Dr.  Monfort  says  :  "  there's  not  much  harm  in  all'  this  !"  Not  much, 
we  admit,  if  solemn  covenants  are  only  a  rope  of  sand ! 


CONDEMNATION   OF   THE   PRACTICE. 

IV.  But  the  practice  as  well  as  the  principles  of  Mr.  McCune  is  in 
contravention  of  our  denominational  law.  The  Presbyterian  Church 
affirms  that  her  ministers  have, 

1.  No  right  to  go  and  organize  a  church  Avithout  her  authority; 
least  of  all,  one  designed  to  be  a  protest  against  the  validity  of  her 
own  distinctive  existence  as  a  denomination. — [Form  Gov.  Cap.  10, 
sec.  8.     Dig.,  pp.  107,  173. 

2.  No  right  to  accept  a  call  to  any  church  without  her  permission. — 
[Form  Gov.  Cap.  16,  Sec.  1,  Cap.  15,  Sec.  9. 

3.  No  right  to  be  installed  as  pastor  over  any  church  without  her 
permission.    [Form  Gov.,  Cap.  16,  sees.  3,  4.    Dig.  pp.  149,  417,  418. 

4.  No  right  to  drop  off,  in  a  church  organization,  offices  and  officers 
"  whom  Christ  has  appointed  and  given  "  to  every  church,  or  fail  to 
ordain  such,  or  substitute  therefor  unordained  committeemen  who  are 
not  scriptural  officers  and  have  no  right  of  juri-sdiction  in  the  house  of 
God.  [Form  Gov.,  Cap.  3,  sec.  2,  Cap.  5,  Cap.  1,  sec.  3.  Dig.  p.  44, 
(6)  pp.  63,  92,  p.  108,  (d),  Com.  of  Faith,  Cap.  25,  sec.  3. 

5.  No  right  to  displace  the  Westminster  standards  and  substitute 
for  them  another  Confession,  Form  of  Government  and  Discipline. 
Every  minister,  elder,  and  deacon,  is  uuder  solemn  ordination  vows  to 
maintain  these  standards  now  sealed  again  by  the  terms  of  Reunion. 
[Form,  Gov.,  Cap.  14,  sec.  7,  Cap.  15,  sec.  12.  Dig.  p  44,  (8),  p.  54, 
(3,  ll,)p.  73,  p.  57,  (14),  p.  91,  (3). 

6.  No  right  to  substitute  a  new  denominational  name  for  any  church 
he  may  organize  while  still  remaining  in  his  own  denomination.  [Dig. 
p.  42,  Title,  Form,  Gov.,  Cap.  15,  sec.  13,  (3,  4). 

7.  No  right  to  form  a  new  church  out  of  undismissed  members. 
[Dig.,  p.  107. 

8.  No  right  to  teach  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  no  scriptural 
right  to  exist  as  a  separate  denomination.  [Form,  Gov.,  Pi*elim, 
Principles,  Cap.  1  sees.  1,  2,  5,  Cap.  15,  sec.  12,  (3,  4,)  Cap.  14, 
sec.  7,  (3,  4). 

9.  No  right  to  encourage  members  of  Presbyterian  Churches,  who 


20 

desire  to  form  another  cliurch,  to  ignore  tlie  customary  petition  to 
Presbytery  to  organize  them.     [Dig.,  p.  108,  (2). 

10.  No  right  to  remain  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
and  do  any  of  these  things.     [Dig.,  p.  57,  (14). 

And  now,  the  contravention  of  every  one  of  the  above  principles  of 
our  denominational  law  Mr.  McCune  has  carried  out  steadily,  persist- 
ently, successively,  and  pubUcly  claims  to  have  the  "  tacit  consent " 
of  his  Presbytery  for  his  new  anti-denominational  denomination. 
(Commercial,  February  7,  1876.)  Thus  has  he  theoretically  and  prac- 
tically denied  her  "right  to  exist "  as  a  separate  distinctive  organiza- 
tion. He  has  substituted  another  creed  for  the  Westminster  standards. 
He  has  rejected  the  ordained  eldership,  substituting  therefor  committee- 
men. Instrumental  in  organizing  a  new  society  and  calling  a  council 
to  recognize  it,  he  has  accepted  a  call  to  become  its  pastor,  been 
reexamined  and  installed,  all  without  leave  of  his  Presbytery,  and 
against  advice  to  the  contrary.  He  has  encouraged  undismissed 
members,  and  would  encourage,  according  to  the  principles  of  the 
Suffolk  Basis,  undismissed  ministers  to  join  the  new  society  for  the 
propagation  of  these  principles,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  retain  the 
old  ecclesiastical  relations,  while  working  in  a  new  and  antagonistic 
interest.  ('"'Address  etc.," p.  19,  Declaration.)  He  has  adopted  a  new 
name  for  his  new  society,  claiming  that  it  is  after  the  pattern  of  the 
Apostolic  Church.  He  has  made  provision  for  the  reception  and 
sending  forth  of  ministers  to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  calls  with  trumpet 
note  to  all  the  churches  of  North  America  to  fall  in  and  march  with  *lie 
new  movement.  He  is,  by  his  own  act,  a  member  of  another  ecclesi- 
astical association  of  independent  bodies.  There  is  not  one  distinctive 
principle  of  the  Government  and  Discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
left  uncontravened  in  the  interest  of  the  new  society.  What  avails 
the  excuse  that  the  "Declaration  of  principles"  are  not  "terms  of 
fellowship,""  when  it  is  manifest  that  the  society  itself  originated  in 
those  principles,  under  Mr.  McCune's  lead,  and  its  purpose  is  to  stand 
upon  and  propagate  them?     (Gazette,  January  12,  1876.) 

ADDITIONAL   ARGUMENTS. 

V.  But  in  addition  to  what  I  have  said,  bearing  upon  the  duty  of 
this  Presbytery  to  discountenance  this  organized  reaction  against  her 
own  standards,  there  are  other  weighty  considerations,  prompting  us  to 
oppose  our  faces  to  the  central  doctrines,  so  zealously  propagated  by 
Mr.  McCune  viz.,  the  essential  sinfulness  of  Protestant  evangelical  de- 
nominations, as  such,  nou-subscription  to  an  extended  creed,  and  non- 
enforcement  of  denominational  law. 


21 

REVIVAL  OF  Rome's  doctrine. 

1.  They  are  a  Eevival  in  our  midst  of  the  Assault  of  Rome  upon  the 
Reformers  and  Reformed  churches,  who,  seceding  from  Papal  Catholicism 
and  Romish  Ecclesiastical  Uniformity,  built  themselves,  for  the  sake 
of  "  the  Heavenly  Truth,"  as  Calvin  calls  it,  upon  distinctive  denomina- 
tional law,  guarding  that  truth  by  distinctive  creed  statements  Ac- 
cording to  Rome  and  Mr.  McCune,  the  churches  of  Luther  and  Calvin 
and  Knox,  Cranmer  and  Ridley,  had  no  right  to  exist  as  separate  denom- 
inations. The  huge  unity  of  the  Papal  church  is  to  be  balanced  now  in 
Christendom  by  a  huger  unity  of  Protestant  conglomeration. 

We  have  here  an  illustration  of  the  old  maxim  that  "extremes  meet." 
The  absolutism  of  Popery  and  the  unfenced  liberalism  of  Independency 
alike  declare  that  all  denominations,  as  such,  except  their  own,  are 
without  right  of  existence ! 

WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY    OF  DIVINES. 

2.  They  are  a  condemnation  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines, 
who,  from  the  tumult  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  rebellion  and  Papal 
intrigue,  and  all  the  anarchy  of  Cromwellian  times,  crowned  with  the 
memories  of  Marston  Moor  and  Naseby,  rescued  the  faith  and  order  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  from  ruin: — an  assembly  which  declared,  "that 
the  doctrine,  worship,  and  government  of  the  house  of  God  are  to  be 
taken  from  God's  word  alone,"  and  that  "  Christ  hath  appointed  a  definite 
Form  of  Government  for  His  Church,  and  has  not  left  it  to  the  wisdom 
and  caprice  of  men ;  "  and  so  formulated  our  peerless  Confession  and 
Polity,  and  established  that  scriptural  rule  of  the  church  which  has  be- 
come our  heir-loom,  inheritance,  and  historic  glory.  Mr.  McCune  would 
be  wiser  than  the  Westminster  Assembly,  in  which  even  Milton  said, 
"Piety,  learning  and  wisdom  were  housed;" — "composed,"  said 
Baxter,  "of  men  of  eminent  learning,  godliness,  ability  and  fidelity," 
and  "than  which,  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  the  world  has  never 
had  one  more  excellent;" — an  assembly,  according  to  the  celebrated 
Judge  Hailes,  "orthodox,  evangelical,  and  probably  since  the  days  of 
the  Apostles,  a  more  learned,  judicious,  and  pious  Assembly  of  Divines 
never  convened." 

MARTYR-HISTORY. 

3.  They  are  a  condemnation  of  the  Martyr-History  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  These  noble  men,  of  whom  the  world  was  not  wor- 
thy, and  whose  march  from  the  prison  to  the  scaffold  and  the  stake 


22 

were  stages  in  the  attainment  of  Presbyterian  faith  and  order,  and 
whose  creeds  have  come  down  to  us,  are  hereby  reproached  as  "oppressors 
of  the  conscience."  In  okl  Grey  Friars'  church-yard,  in  Edinburgh, 
stands  a  time -soiled  tomb-stone,  chapped  and  mouldy,  "  Sacred  to 
the  memory  of  eigliteen  thousand  Scottish  martyrs."  In  the  cem- 
etery of  Stirling,  a  granite  monument  rises,  built  by  Presbyterian 
hands,  inscribed  to  the  "  Rock  of  Ages, "  a  memorial  of  what  God 
did  for  Scotland  by  martyrs  such  as  young  Hamilton,  and  men 
like  Henderson,  Knox,  Melville,  Gillespie,  and  the  Erskines,  the 
descendants  of  the  martyrs.  What  would  Mr.  McOune's  ancestors, 
who  were  hunted  by  the  brutal  Claverhouse  and  his  dragoons,  like 
partridges  on  the  mountains  of  Scotland; — what  would  Cameron,  who, 
in  the  days  of  persecution,  used  to  go  by  moonlight  and  weep  over  the 
grave  of  his  friend,  and  sigh,  "  0  !  to  be  with  thee,  Ritchie!  " — say,  to 
the  doctrine  that  the  enforcement  of  their  denominational  law,  and  the 
maintenance  of  their  Presbyterian  creed,  and  the  existence  of  the  Pres- 
byterian denomination,  as  such,  were  an  "oppression  of  the  conscience," 
"sinfully  sectarian"  and  a  "reproach  to  the  cause  of  Christ?"  What 
would  the  Albigenses  say?  What  Coligny  and  the  thirty  thousand 
Huguenots,  massacred  in  the  bloody  St.  Bartholomew  carnival,  whose 
bells  awoke  the  vengeance  of  Heaven  and  brought  down  the  I'rench 
Revolution  as  a  judgment   from  God?     What  the  Waldenses,  those 

"  Slaughtered  Saints,  whose  bones, 
Lie  scattered  on  the  Alpine  mountains  cold,  ^' 

E'en  them  who  kept  God  s  truth  so  pure  of  old," 

and  who  with  "  mother  and  child  "  were  hurled  from  the  top  of  the 
rocks  upon  the  pd^es  of  the  "  triple  tyrant"  below  because  they  loved 
the  Presbyterian  faith  and  order?  What  would  the  "  Never-Surrender 
Apprentice -Boys  of  Derry"  say?  What  would  all  this  noble  army  of 
the  Martyrs  say,  could  they  rise  from  their  tombs  now,  and  just  take 
a  look  at  Mt.  Lookout,  then  read  the  Herald  and  Presbyter  to  find  in 
it  these  words,  "  there  is  not  much  harm  in  all  this ! " 

CIVIL   AND   RELIGIOUS   LIBERTY. 

4.  They  are  a  condemnation  of  that  enduring  vigilance  by  which 
the  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  have  been  alike  secured  to 
Christendom  as  against  despotic  power  in  both  Church  and  State,  and 
by  which  the  rights  of  man  and  the  truth  of  God  have  been  preserved 
pure  on  earth, 

"  Oppression  of  the  conscience,"  forsooth  I  Who  does  not  know  that 
this  is  the  old  cry  raised  against  John  Calvin  in  Geneva,  and  John 


23 

Knox  in  Scotland,  when,  with  unswerving  fidelity,  they  guarded  and 
fenced,  by  catechisms,  formularies,  confessions,  and  denominational 
law,  the  truth  and  order  of  God's  house  so  dearly  won  ?  Who  does 
not  know  that  the  founders  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  have  been 
abused  as  tyrants  and  oppressors  of  the  conscience  by  men  whom  im- 
partial history  has  noted  on  its  pages  as  "  Tolerationists,"  "  Libertin- 
ists,"  and  "  Sectaries  ;"  who  larded  their  assaults  with  pleas  of  "  Union," 
"Freedom,"  "Conscience,"  because  the  enforcement  of  denomina- 
tional law  baffled  their  efforts  to  uproot  the  foundations  laid  by  the 
"Restorers  of  paths  to  dwell  in?"  The  genealogy  of  civil  and  relig- 
ious liberty  is  traced  along  the  very  line  of  enforcement  of  denomina- 
tional law  and  adherence  to  the  "  distinctive"  peculiarities  of  Presby- 
terian Faith  and  Order, 

The  world  is  indebted  to  the  church  for  everything  noblest  and  best 
in  her  free  institutions.  Freedom  is  under  perpetual  obligations  to 
her.  Enforcement  of  organic  law  must  exist,  whether  in  church, 
state,  or  nation  ;  otherwise  every  thing  rushes  to  ruin  in  all  society. 
It  is  the  glory  of  the  Calvinistic  Church,  and  not  her  reproach,  that  she 
"enforced"  her  denominational  law  in  favor  of  Presbyterian  "Doc- 
trine, Order  and  Worship,"  giving  thereby  to  the  nations  their  most 
precious  inheritance.  "  By  these,"  says  even  Mr.  Buckle,  "  the  dying 
spark  of  freedom  was  kindled  into  a  blaze."  "To  John  Knox,"  says 
Froude,  "England  owes  a  debt  for  liberty  it  can  not  pay."  "  Calvin's 
principles,"  says  Henri,  "  are  immortal  and  immoveable  in  both  Gov- 
ernment and  Doctrine."  "  Thousands  were  debtors  to  him,"  says  the 
judicious  Hooker,  "as  touching  Divine  Knowledge,  yet  he  to  none 
but  only  to  God— a  founder  of  the  French  Church,  incomparably  the 
wisest  it  ever  had  since  the  hour  it  enjoyed  him  "  "  Geneva,"  says 
Montesquieu,  "'  is  the  mother  of  modern  Republics,  and  should  cele- 
brate with  festivity  the  day  on  which  Calvin  entered  the  city,"  "Cal- 
vin," says  Bunsen,  "spoke  for  all  times  and  all  men;"  and  in  the 
language  of  Motley,  "Europe  owes  her  political  liberty  to  Calvinism." 
"The  Institutes,"  says  Guizot,  "are  one  of  the  noblest  edifices  ever 
erected  by  men."  Even  Bancroft,  a  New  England  Unitarian,  declares 
that  "Calvin,  bowing  to  no  patent  of  nobility,  but  that  of  the  elect 
of  God,  made  Geneva  the  impregnable  fortress  of  popular  liberty ; " 
and  adds  that  the  very  "first  voice"  raised  for  liberty  in  this  land, 
both  civil  and  religious,  "  came  from  Presbyterians,"  and  that  "  he 
who  will  not  honor  the  memory  and  influence  of  Calvin  knows  but 
little  of  the  origin  of  American  Liberty."  Is  it  in  John  Calvin  we 
glory?     God  forbid  ;    but  in  God  we  glory,  who  gave  us  John  Calvin. 

^Vhat  kind  of  argument  is  it  that  would  impeach  all  this  glorious 


24 

record  as  an  "oppression  of  the  conscience  "  through  "sectarian  law?" 
Pray  who  set  the  conscience  free  from  the  commandments  and 
traditions  of  men  and  the  rigors  of  despotic  power  in  the  church  of 
God  and  in  the  iState,  if  not  Eldership,  Puritans  and  Presbyterians,  by 
the  enforcement  of  denominational  law? 

INDIVIDUALISM   AND   INDIFPERENTISM. 

5.  The  central  doctrines  of  Mr.  McCune's  position  exalt  extreme 
Individualism,  Indifferentisra,  and  Subjective  Looseness,  above  obedi- 
ence to  Organic  Law  and  true  Christian  Unity.  If  Mr.  McCune  may 
use  his  efforts  to  organize  a  new  society  without  leave  of  his  Presbytery, 
or  with  leave  of  it,  as  a  standing  protest  against  the  right  of  his  own 
denomination  to  exist,  as  such,  against  the  right  to  enlarge  her  creed 
statement  in  case  of  necessity,  and  against  the  enforcement  of  the  dis- 
tinctive faith  and  order  of  his  church  upon  the  conscience  and  conduct 
of  her  official  teachers ;  if  he  may  throw  overboard  the  standards  of  his 
church  in  a  new  organization,  and  call  upon  all  "  the  churches  of 
North  America "  to  rally  to  his  help,  every  one  else  may  claim  the 
same  privilege.  Individualism  can  not  deny  to  the  next  man  its  own 
principle  of  independent  action  and  self  evolution. 

Indifferentism  can  not  help  suppressing  a  great  part  of  the  revealed 
word  and  will  of  God,  The  residuum,  however  dear,  will  not  only  be 
insufficient  to  save  what  is  distinctive  in  faith  and  order,  but  by  very 
disjunction  from  it  must  become  corrupted,  if  not  finally  fade  away  from 
the  consciousness  and  the  creed  of  the  church.  A  thousand  heresies,  now 
excluded  from  Evangelical  bodies,  wdl  creejD  back  to  find  a  nest  in  tlie 
bosom  of  individual  churches.  It  is  tiiis  indifierence  to  the  •'  distinctive" 
doctrine  and  order  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  denial  of  her 
right  from  Christ  to  "enforce"  the  teaching  of  them  on  her  official 
ministry,  except  under  the  reproach  of  being  "divisive  and  schismatic," 
that  constitutes  the  ground  of  our  earnest  protest.  Even  the  "common 
faith,"  reduced  of  late  to  a  few  vague  propositions,  will  be  narrowed  still 
more,  till  scarcely  a  ray  of  the  ' '  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  "  is  left. 
"  Kevision"  and  "  change,"  or  substitution  of  a  New  Book,  will  reopen 
the  sluice  gates  of  uncontrollable  contention.  Even  tlie  "  Auburn 
Declaration,''  if  it  could  be  exalted,  as  some  would  have  it,  into  a  semi- 
official gloss  upon  the  standards,  would  not  heal  the  breach.  The  habit  of 
disregarding  ordination  vows  will  be  followed  by  the  habit  of  disregarding 
covenant  engagements  on  the  part  of  church  members.  Conflicting  inter- 
ests will  seek  to  control  every  dollar  of  vested  funds  the  church  possesses 
in  the  interest  of  an  indiscriminate  unionism.     Bonds  of  confidence 


25 

will  be  broken  and  disintegration  threaten  the  church.  Religion  must 
suffer,  for  government  and  discipline  will  rest  under  the  ban  of  non- 
enforcement.  The  tower  of  Babel  will  be  rebuilt,  only  to  be  con- 
founded of  God. 

The  whole  tendency  of  this  non-enforcement  theory  goes  simply  to 
the  contempt  of  church  authority,  derived  from  the  crown  of  Christ. 
It  transmutes  official  courts  into  mere  voluntary  societies.  The  mass 
meeting  vote,  the  irresponsible  extemporized  council,  the  unorganized 
society,  independency  rampant  over  constitution  and  law,  quiet  nullifi- 
cation, tolerated  revolution— it  is  simply  the  world's  communism 
transferred  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  piously  hallowed  with  the 
oiutment  of  the  Savior's  intercessory  prayer.  It  is  the  "social  com- 
pact theory"  of  Rousseau  brought  into  Israel — a  Darwinian  develop- 
ment of  ecclesiastical  Fourierism,  or  Broad-Churchism,  as  one  minister 
has  Avellsaid,  under  the  conceit  of  "Progress"  and  the  "Spirit  of  the 
Age," — a  Philistine  mode  of  carrying  the  Ark  of  Grod  on  a  "  netv  caii,'" 
Uzzah-like,  and  not  "  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  Levites" — a  seeking 
of  God  "  not  after  the  due  order."— (1  Chron.,  15,  13).  What  wonder  if 
Uzzah  dies  at  the. Mercy-Seat,  even  striving  to  avert  the  disaster  his 
presumption  provoked  ?  or  that  instead  of  God's  glory  being  brought  to 
Zion,  it  should  be  turned  aside  to  tarry  in  the  house  of  some  faithful 
Obed — Edom  ?  All  because  of  the  non-enforcement  of  Israel's  denomina- 
tional law ! 

UNITY   AND   SCHISM. 

6.  The  principles  of  Mr.  McCune  rest  upon  a  misconception  of  the 
Scriptural  ideas  of  Unity  and  Schism.  They  make  the  "Body "of 
which  the  Apostle  speaks  mean  the  totality  of  massed  denominations 
in  external  organic  uniformity  ;  or  else,  an  inorganic  atomistic  array  of 
undenominational  individual  churches,  ecclesiastically  disunited.  By 
self-contradiction,  they  make  unity  inconsistent  with  plurality  of 
organized  parts  in  which  the  unity  dwells,  and  confound  internal 
"Schism"  with  external  separation  of  the  mass  into  parts.  This  is 
Rome's  doctrine  precisely.  But  the  "Body"  of  which  the  Apostle 
speaks  is  the  plural  unit  of  all  who  are  spiritually  joined  to  Christ  by 
individual  faith,  no  matter  by  what  name  they  are  called — the  mys- 
tical "body"  into  which  all  believers  are  baptised  by  one  spirit.  Its 
Unity,  for  which  Christ  prayed,  and  whose  prayer  has  ever 
been  heard  throughout  all  the  ages,  is  a  Spiritual  Unity,  a  Unity 
of  faith  and  love,  and  in — being  in  God,  and  the  keeping  of 
his  words.  ''One  as  ive  are!"  "lam  in  them,  and  Thou  in 
Me!"     "  The   luords   I  have  given  them  they  have  kept!"     Its  "Com- 


26 

munion"  is  the  "  Coramuniou  of  Saints"  of  every  name  and  clime, 
unbroken  by  death,  everlasting,  and  perfectly  consistent  with  plurality 
of  denominations.  The  "Schisms,"  or  "Divisions,"  (Schismata,  1 
Cor.  1,  10,  11,  18,  19,  12,  25),  the  Apostles  reproves,  are  the  conten- 
tions, personal  preferences,  and  oppositions  of  belief,  actually  present 
in  the  Apostolic  Church  itself,  which  Mr.  McCune  himself  confesses 
was  externally  one  denomination  at  the  very  time  it  was  torn  by  these 
very  divisions  and  schisms;  and  not  the  separation  of  the  mass  of 
believers  into  different  denominations.  The  Schism  was  "in"  the 
body.  Denominational  union,  even  under  Apostolic  care,  did  not 
prevent  "Schism  in  the  Body,"  at  that  very  time  externally 
one.  The  "Unity,"  therefore,  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  and 
for  which  Christ  prayed,  is,  manifestly,  in  the  light  of  the  Scrip- 
ture record  itself,  not  secured  by  external  denominational  one- 
ness, nor  is  the  "Schism"  which  they  deprecated  averted  in  the 
least  thereby.  Separation  of  the  mass  into  parts,  where,  through 
want  of  clearer  light,  there  is  room  for  honest  and  conscientious  dif- 
ference of  judgment,  is  justified  for  the  sake  of  peace,  upon  Paul's 
great  law  of  expediency,  and  upon  this  ground  evangelical  denomin- 
ations are  vindicated,  while  the  spiritual  unity  in  Christ  their  head 
remains  unbroken,  "Now  we  see  in  part  and  know  in  part" — and  this 
was  the  argument  of  the  Reformers.  "  Let  there  be  no  strife  between 
me  and  thee."  "  Union  "  is  not  "  Unity."  The  one  Body  of  Christ 
is  not  an  external  union  of  aggregated  atoms  or  individual  churches. 
It  is  an  organic  spiritual  unity,'  divided  into  many  members,  of  which 
Christ  is  the  head,  a  tree  into  many  branches,  of  which  Christ  is  the 
root,  a  building  into  many  rooms,  of  which  Christ  is  the  founda- 
tion. Atomistic  cohesion  is  not  unity.  Conglomeration  is  not  unity. 
Disintegrated  independent  individualism  of  churches  is  neither  unity 
nor  organic  union.  To  separate  into  different  rooms  the  contending 
scholars  of  one  school  is  not  schism;  to  put  them  all  into  the  same 
room  is  not  unity.  Mass  all  the  denominations  together,  it  will  not 
produce  the  unity  Christ  prayed  for,  or  Paul  preached.  Schism  is  only 
to  be  healed  by  the  enlightening  and  sanctifying  grace  of  Christ  in  the 
soul,  leading  to  clearer  apprehension  of  truth,  and  more  perfect  faith, 
love  and  obedience.  And  never,  "  till  we  all  come,  in  the  unity  of 
the  faith  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  wito  a  perfect  man, 
unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ,"  will  our  unity  be 
perfect ;  nor  will  the  destruction  of  denominations  contribute  so  much 
as  an  iota  to  this  glorious  result. 


27 

TOLERATION. AND   CREEDS. 

7.  Mr.  McCune's  principles  proceed  upon  false  views  of  Toleration 
and  Creeds.  In  his  work  on  Organic  Union  his  argument  is,  that  be- 
cause "soul-destroying"  and  "damnable  heresies"  existed  in  the 
Apostolic  Church,  and  the  church  was  not  denominationally  divided 
on  this  account,  therefore  external  union  of  all  denominations  ought 
to  take  place  now,  notwithstanding  equally  grievous  heresies  in  doc- 
trine and  order  developed  during  eighteen  hundred  years.  He  af- 
firms that  "  the  Apostles  regarded  their  brief  creed  (!)  as  a  sufiicient  pro- 
tection against  these  perversions,"  and  that  the  same  ci'eed  is  "suffi- 
cient" now; — the  creed  of  "a  few  fundamental  doctrines" — not 
dreaming  that  the  Apostolic  letters  to  the  Koman,  Corinthian,  Thes- 
salonian,  Colossian,  Galatian,  Ephesian,  and  other  churches,  to  the 
Avhole  extent  of  the  epistles,  were  an  extended  creed  and  polemic 
against  the  errors  of  the  time.  He  confounds  the  simple  confession 
required  of  unofficial  persons  when  becoming  members  of  the  church, 
with  the  system  of  doctrine  and  order  and  the  doctrines  and  order  of 
the  system  the  Apostle  imposes,  in  extenso,  upon  all  public  teachers, 
and  which  he  commands  to  be  "  committed  to  faithful  men  who  shall 
be  able  to  teach  others  also."  Of  the  imagined  brief  creed  of  the 
Apostle  he  says,  "it  efficiently  excluded  heresy  then,  so  it  will  now" — 
a  statement  contradicted  by  every  page  of  history,  sacred  and  profane. 
(Org.  Unity  pp.  48,  49.)  Hence  his  doctrine  of  toleration,  underlying 
his  non-enforcement  principle.  The  "  enlargement  of  the  creed," 
as  he  calls  it,  is  "  an  unblushing  assumption  of  prerogative  in  the  Pro- 
testant church."  (Org.  Unity  p.  49.)  Hence  the  throwing  overboard 
of  the  Westminister  standards  is  a  logical  necessity,  as  is  also  his  pole- 
mic against  the  denominational  law  by  which  they  are  "enforced." 
To  one  Avho  has  read  the  epistles  of  Paul,  how  extravagant  the  state- 
ment that  the  Apostles  had  only  a  "brief  creed  I"  Mr.  McCune's 
theory  rests  upon  churchly  indifferentism  to  certain  truths  deemed 
relatively  of  less  importance  than  others — as  for  instance,  predestina- 
tion than  atonement,  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  than  eternal  pun- 
ishment—and seeks,  for  union's  sake,  to  reduce  what  he  calls  the  "  few 
fundamentals"  to  a  very  minimum  of  evangelical  belief,  simply  "  as- 
sented to"  by  ministers,  but  not  "enforced"  by  denominational  law. 
And  this  minimum  is  emphasized  as  that  whole  body  of  truth  known 
in  history  as  the  "common  faith."  It  contracts  the  necessary  articles 
of  the  church's  faith,  Avhich  are  as  well  the  articles  of  her  peace,  to 
the  smallest  compass,  and  expands  the  spirit  of  toleration  in  the  opposite 
direction  to  include  the  utmost  possible  number.     Within  the  limits  of 


28 

this  toleration  and  creed  contraction,  Semi-Arianisra,  Semi-Pelagianism, 
Arminianism,  Antinoraianism,  Fatalism,  Baptismal  Regeneration, 
Sacramental  Grace,  Consubstantiation,  Independency,  Prelacy  and 
Presbyterianism,  may  all  find  a  place  and  be  alike  protected  and 
defended  in  tlie  same  Presbytery  or  pulpit.  They  are  the  toleranda  of 
the  "  Union  Christian  Church ; "  a  church  with  ill  defined  doctrines, 
lax-coherence,  discordant  customs,  and  almost  boundless  license,  a 
spectacle  abhorrent  to  the  mind  of  Paul  and  to  the  Prayer  of  Christ. 
It  would  be  difl&cult  for  Mr.  McCune  to  show,  upon  his  principle  of 
toleration,  why  Semi-Arianism  has  not  as  much  right  to  be  tolerated 
in  the  Presbyterian  church  as  Semi-Pelaginism,  or  Prelacy  as  Inde- 
pendency, or  Consubstantiation  and  the  Papal  doctrine.  If  not,  then  the 
the  line  between  error  and  truth  can  only  be  drawn  by  a  church  creed  so 
explicit  that  the  creed-statement  of  the  truth  will  itself  refute  the 
opposing  error,  and  the  enforcement  of  denominational  law  is  the  only 
way  by  which  that  truth  can  be  preserved.  The  idea  seems  to  have 
escaped  Mr.  McCune's  mind,  that  the  ivltness-bearing  character  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  to  the  truth  of  God  requires  her  to  testify  in  her  own 
language  her  own  understanding  of  that  truth,  as  against  the  false 
glosses  of  errorists  and  sectaries.  Hence  the  propriety  of  her  extended 
creeds  and  confessions,  as  barriers  against  unsound  doctrine. 

But  where  does  the  Church  of  Christ  find  authority  to  reduce  "the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints"  to  a  minimum  of  doctrine  and 
order,  and  so  leave  both  unprotected  ?  Nowhere !  Whence  does 
she  derive  a  right  to  say  that  one  doctrine  is  relatively  more  import- 
ant than  another,  when  all  are  of  absolute  and  infinite  importance, 
being  the  inspired  word  of  God,  not  one  jot  or  tittle  of  which  shall 
pass  away?  Squarely  did  the  Presbyterian  Church  plant  herself  against 
this  false  toleration  theory  in  her  terms  of  Reunion,  when  she  declared 
what  doctrines  she  would  enforce  upon  her  ministry,  even  her  own 
confession  for  all  time,  and  squarely  did  she  shut  the  gates  upon  the 
self-ordained  and  irresj)onsible  umpires  of  toleranda,  when  she  refused 
to  legalize  the  vague  proposition  about  "  various  modes  of  stating,  ex- 
plaining, and  illustrating"  her  doctrines,  and  bound  her  ministers  to 
the  standards  "  pure  and  simple."  At  bottom,  this  whole  theory  of 
non-enforcement  rests  upon  a  revolt  against  the  legitimate  power  of 
the  church  delegated  to  her  by  Christ,  in  her  use  of  the  "  Keys." 
But  either  the  Church  of  Christ  is  a  God-built  Society,  not  by  a  will 
of  her  own,  nor  founded  on  human  compact,  but  bearing  vice-regal 
unctions  derived  from  the  crown  of  her  Lord,  into  the  exercise  of 
which,  for  "  the  heavenly  doctrine's  sake,"  her  ministry  is  inducted,  and 
for  which  she  is  accountable  under  the  most  awful  sanctions  for  faith- 


29 

fulness  herein — either  this,  or  she  is  the  most  blasphemous  pretender 
that  ever  trod  the  earth.  The  toleration  that  would  refuse  to  bind 
the  "  whole  counsel  of  God  "  by  denominational  law  upon  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  or  fail  to  protect  it  by  an  adequate  creed,  is  a  tolera- 
tion that  would  beckon  a  boundless  brood  of  heresies  to  come  in,  sac- 
rifice the  warfare  of  the  church  to  a  stagnant  peace,  and  to  the  phantom 
of  a  mere  external  uniformity.  It  is  a  toleration  that  would  make  the 
battle  for  truth,  and  the  victory  of  Christ,  alike  impossible,  and  strike 
the  name  of  "Conqueror"  from  the  titles  that  adorn  and  blaze  in  the 
diadem  of  our  King.  What  must  we  think  of  the  principle  that  the 
church  of  Christ  may  not  formulate  an  article  in  her  creed  so  long  as 
any  "  one  "  Christian  minister  objects  to  the  same ;  or  if  she  does,  it  is 
an  "oppression"  of  the  conscience? — (Org.  Vanity,  pp.  38,  40,  48.) 
What  must  we  think  of  the  position,  that  a  creed,  formed  by  the  whole 
church,  less  one  minister's  assent,  is  a  "  sectarian  creed  ?  "  Or  that  the 
consciences  of  all  are  to  be  oppressed  for  the  sake  of  the  conscience  of 
one? 

CHARACTER   LEFT   DEFENSELESS. 

8.  Mr.  McCune's  principle  of  non-enforcement  strikes  a  blow  at 
all  the  guarantees  of  protection  to  personal  and  official  character, 
secured  by  denominational  law  to  ministers  and  members  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

Under  the  reign  of  non-enforcement,  every  member  and  minister  of 
the  Church  is  left  defenseless,  and  becomes  a  victim  to  the  capricious 
will  of  any  prejudiced  and  concerted  majority.  Constitution  and 
laws,  ordained  to  protect  the  rights  of  individuals  and  minorities, 
against  the  oppression  of  inexorable  lawlessness  and  arbitrary  will,  and 
against  the  unconstitutional  legislation,  voice,  and  decision,  of  excited 
majorities  deaf  to  the  call  of  justice,  are  trampled  in  the  dust,  and  the 
tyranny  of  cliques,  rings,"  conclaves,  and  coteries,  combined  for  the 
advancement  of  their  own  policies  and  opinions,  is  installed  upon  the 
prostrate  form  of  every  sacred  right  guaranteed,  under  solemn  coven- 
ant, to  the  humblest  member  and  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Appeal  to  law  is  vain.  Arbitrary  power  spurred  on  by  private  under- 
standings to  defeat  the  plainest  claims  of  Justice,  this  is  the  tyranny 
that  usurps  the  seat  of  judgment  in  every  court  where  the  principle 
of  non-enforcement  of  statute  laws  obtains.  Under  its  sway  the  most 
atrocious  slanders  may  be  poured  upon  the  head  of  the  innocent ;  the 
darkest  conspiracies  crowned  with  success,  and  injuries  irreparable  per- 
petrated with  impunity.  Name,  influence,  honor,  family,  character, 
and  usefulness  may  be  destroyed,  and  crimes  which  even  the  ungodly 


30 

would  abhor,  left  not  only  unpunished,  but  shielded  in  the  kingdom  of 
Christ.  How  long  will  the  enforcement  of  denominational  law  as  to 
morals  survive  the  non-enforcement  of  denominational  law  as  to  doc- 
trine f  Not  an  hour!  The  principle  that  tolerates  for  peace  and 
union's  sake  false  doctrine,  will  tolerate  for  peace  and  union's  sake 
a  wicked  practice ;  the  two  go  hand  in  hand,  and  he  is  blind  as  the 
blindest  who  cannot  see  that  the  influence  which  palliates  non- 
enforcement  of  organic  law  as  to  matter  of  faith,  is  the  very  influence 
which  conspires  to  destroy  the  enforcement  of  law  as  to  matter  of  morals, 
wrests  from  the  injured  his  most  sacred  securities  and  rights  of  defense, 
and  shields  the  guilty  at  the  expense  of  justice  and  truth.  Universally, 
where  organic  law  ends,  there  personal  tyranny  begins,  and  the  courts  of 
Christ  can  only  become,  in  their  measure,  rivals  of  the  Star-Chamber 
of  England,  the  Inquisition  of  Spain,  or  the  Vehmic  courts  of  Ger- 
many, where  the  only  law  was  the  will  of  the  tyrants  who  ruled  them. 

ETHICS   AND   STRATEGY. 

9.  The  ethics  of  this  new  movement  are  exceptionable,  "Decently 
and  in  order"  all  things  are  to  be  done  according  to  the  Apostle's  rule. 
But,  in  my  judgment,  there  is  a  savor  of  sti-ategy  which  seems  to  me 
neither  right,  wise,  nor  commendable  in  this  whole  matter. 

Were  Mr.  McCune  and  his  new  society  both  outside  of  Presbytery, 
nothing  is  more  clear  than  that  neither  could  be  admitted  to  our  fel- 
lowship after  the  announcements  of  doctrine  both  have  proposed  to 
the  world.  Denominational  law  would  not  "receive"  them.  (Dig. 
pp.  57  (14),  63  (2),  92,  II.  (2).  The  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout 
Church  is  not  a  Congregational  Church,  "like  that  of  the  church  of 
the  Pilgrims  in  Brooklyn,  or  First  Congregational  Church,  Philadel- 
phia," or  any  other  such  churches  in  the  land.  It  has  repudiated  the 
Confession  of  Faith  which  those  churches  retain.  Knowing  well  that 
Presbytery's  permission  to  organize  such  a  church  from  undismissed 
members  received  "on  profession,"  with  mere  committeemen  as  over- 
seers, could  never  be  obtained,  Mr.  McCune  encourages  the  organiza- 
tion of  it  himself  without  leave  of  his  Presbytery.  The  palliators  of 
the  movement  plead  "usage"  in  violation  of  law,  when  such  usage  is 
not  even  an  "excuse."  He  preaches  a  sermon  against  organizing  a 
Presbyterian  Church  at  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout.  He  draws  up 
for  it  its  new  creed,  basis,  and  regulations  of  expediency.  Knowing 
as  well  that  Presbytery  would  never  recognize  it,  either  as  to  its  or- 
ganization, principles,  or  aim,  he  secures  an  irresponsible  council  un- 
called by  evangelical  churches  to  do  this,  and  to  re-examine  and  install 


31 

him  also  without  leave  of  his  Presbytery.  That  is,  he  just  acts  in- 
dependently from  tvithin  the  Presbyterian  fold,  and  according  to  the 
"Suffolk  Basis,"  both  as  to  undismissed  members  and  undismissed  minis- 
ters. JMr.  McCune's  attitude,  therefore,  is  not  that  of  a  Presbyterian 
minister  maintaining  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  preaching  by  leave 
of  his  Presbytery  to  a  Congregational  Church  holding  the  (^octrines 
of  the  same  Confession,  but  it  is  that  of  an  ultra  Brownist  Independ- 
ent, in  revolt  against  Presbyterial  organization,  and  installed  in  con- 
travention of  the  organic  law  by  which  he  is  bound,  over  a  new  cre- 
ation of  his  own,  as  a  standing  protest  against  the  "  essential  sinfulness" 
of  all  existing  evangelical  denominations,  as  such,  against  extended 
creeds,  and  against  the  enforcement  of  denominational  law.  (Neal's 
Puritans,  I.  149,  150).  Thus  is  acquired  a  status  for  himself  and  the 
new  movement  which  could  never  have  been  acquired  in  an  orderly 
manner,  and  a  quasi  imprimatur  of  the  Presbytery  is  given  to  the 
whole  affair,  Mr.  McCune  proclaiming  to  the  public  that  he  has  his 
Presbytery's  "tacit  consent."  Yea,  more;  Mr.  McCune,  Avith  an  air 
of  nonchalance,  declares  "any  petty  question  about  the  formality  of 
first  asking  leave  may  interest  hair-splitting  ecclesiastical  lawyers 
whose  vocation  it  is  to  tithe  mint  anise  and  cummin.  If  Presbytery 
says  the  thing  done  is  right,  I  will  be  content.  If  she  says  I  should 
have  first  asked  leave,  Iivill  plead  ignorance  and  indifference.''  (Presby- 
terian, Feb.  12,  1876.)   Comment  on  this  sentence  is  unnecessary. 

I  say  the  ethics  of  this  whole  movement  are  exceptionable.  Re- 
maining under  vows  to  maintain  and  defend  the  Presbyterian  stand- 
ards, Mr.  McCune  throws  them  overboard  in  his  new  organization, 
denies  the  right  of.  Presbytery  to  "enforce"  her  peculiar  tenets  as  to 
faith  and  order,  as  a  term  of  office,  and  pleads  in  this  behalf,  "  con- 
science" and  "union."  Conscience,  with  Mr.  McCune,  has  rights 
against  conscience.  The  conscience  that  throws  overboard  the  stand- 
ards as  a  "hurtful  excrescence"  in  the  new  church,  has  rights  against 
the  same  conscience  that  "sincerely  approves  and  adopts"  them  as 
good  in  the  old  church !  He  has  two  different  exercises  of  the  same 
"private  judgment"  in  reference  to  the  same  public  thing;  two  dif- 
ferent subscriptions,  two  different  Confessions,  two  different  organiza- 
tions !  In  the  one  he  is  antagonistic  to  the  other,  yet  he  professes  to 
be  loyal  to  both.  Is  not  this  " Schism  in  the  body?  "  Any  minister," 
says  the  Suffolk  basis,  "  who  has  adopted  this  Basis,  but  who  does  not 
deem  it  expedient  to  sever  existing  denominational  relations  shall,  at  his  re- 
quest, be  enrolled  ryoiwithstanding."  (Addre&s  p.  19,  Dec.  signed  by  Mr. 
McCune.)  This  is  the  key  that  solves  not  only  the  reception  of  "  undis- 
missed ministers"  into  the  new  movement,  but  also  of  "  undismissed 


32 

members"  into  the  new  society  in  contravention  of  denominational 
law.  I  submit  that  such  ethics  are  not  the  ethics  of  the  scriptures. 
And  that  all  this  should  be  done  under  the  shield  of  the  World's 
Evangelical  Alliance  creed,  which  never  was  meant  to  be  a  basis  for  a 
particular  church  organization,  is  a  grievous  misrepresentation  of  the 
nature  and  aim  of  that  noble  movement.  Read  the  masterly  papers 
of  those  great  and  good  men,  Drs.  Hodge,  Smith,  Bedell,  Marston, 
Conrad,  Cook,  Muhlenburg,  Stoughton,  Davis  and  Noel,  representing 
English,  French  and  American  denominations.  (Evan.  All.  Proceed- 
ings 1873,  pp.  139-197).  They  all  repel  both  the  principles  and  the 
practices  against  which  I  have  here  spoken.  It  is  well  to  remember 
that  the  Evangelical  Alliance  is  not  a  church  organization.  It  is  sim- 
ply a  voluntary  association  of  individuals,  merely  for  testimony  and 
cooperation  in  Christian  work. 

CAUSES   OF   TROUBLE. 

10.  The  principles  advocated  by  Mr.  McCune,  associated,  as  they  are, 
with  oppostion  to  Church  creeds,  the  overthrow  of  the  eldership,  the 
encouragement  of  an  irresponsible  ministry,  and  other  measures  that 
bring  no  good  to  the  church,  are  nourished  by  the  very  same  influences 
which,  in  days  past,  have  occasioned  a  world  of  trouble  to  the  people 
of  God.  One  of  the  branches  of  the  divided  Church,  the  first  year 
after  the  division,  when  reviewing  and  deploring  the  past,  and  hum- 
bling itself  before  God,  on  account  of  its  unfaithfulness,  traced  the 
causes  of  the  trouble  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  three  thmgs: 
I.  The  lax  use  of  the  powers  of  the  Keys,  so  that  discipline  was  put 
in  abeyance.  II.  The  licentiousness  of  the  religious  press,  propagating 
false  doctrine.  III.  The  bold  and  unwarranted  interpretation,  by  am- 
bitious men,  of  .particular  passages  of  the  Scripture,  in  favor  of  some 
preconceived  theory.  "  Our  great  error,"  it  said,  "has  been  a  want  of 
fidelity  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  ecclesiastical  compact.  Many 
have  been  allowed  publicly  to  avow  opinions  subversive  of  its  distin- 
guishing doctrines.  Who  does  not  know  that  as  against  want  of 
fidelity  in  church  courts  there  is  no  remedy  but  revolution  ?  "  Again, 
"  We  are  convinced  that  the  diflficulties  in  which  our  beloved  Church 
has  been  involved  have  been  in  no  small  degree  owing  to  the  periodical 
press,  and  we  confidently  believe  that  unless  more  care  be  taken  to 
guard  against  the  circulation  of  unsuitable  papers  in  our  churches,  the 
same  evils  from  which  we  have  escaped  will  again  come  in  upon  us, 
notwithstanding  all  the  efforts  of  the  pulpit  to  counteract  them."  And 
again,  "  There  are  few  things  more  alarming  than  the  bold  and  unau- 


33 

diorized  interpretations  put  on  certain  passages  of  the  word  of  God  by 
serious  persons,  in  order  to  maintain  some  favorite  principle  adopted 
by  them,  and  which,  before  they  begin  their  inquiries,  they  confi- 
dently presume  can  not  be  contrary  to  the  word  of  God." — (Baird's 
Digest,  pp,  583,  584,  588,  589).  When  the  disorganizers  in  the  rad- 
ical New  Light  movement,  which,  in  the  begining  of  the  present  cen- 
tury, spread  through  Virginia,  the  Carolinas,  Teimessee,  Kentucky, 
Ohio,  and  other  States,  vexed  the  church  under  the  cry  of  liberality 
and  union,  progress  and  reform,  their  work  ended  only  in  division  and 
destruction.  Three  prime  principles  promulgated  by  pamphlets,  newspa- 
pers, and  irresponsible  preachers,  were  the  sail*  of  the  movement :  First, 
the  right  of  any  person,  educated  or  uneducated,  authorized  or  unauth- 
orized, to  preach  the  Gospel :  Secondly,  non-exclusion  from  churches 
and  church  courts  ;  Thirdly,  opposition  to  church  creeds.  Against 
the  first  our  church  planted  herself  upon  her  time-honored  and  well- 
tried  ground,  saying:  "It  cannot  be  reasonably  denied,  that  it  is  dis- 
orderly for  any  person  to  preach  the  word,  or  to  administer  the  ordinances 
of  the  gospel,  who  is  not  clothed  with  ministerial  authority."  Against  the 
second,  she  said :  "If  we  attend  to  their  sentiment  in  church  government 
and  discipline,  we  will  find  them  no  less  anti-Scriptural  and  subversive 
of  all  good  order  in  Christ's  Kingdom.  Their  own  declaration  is  '  Chris- 
tians have  no  power  over  one  another  to  cut  off  or  exclude.' "  Against  the 
third,  she  said :  "  (Consider,  dear  brethren,  the  pernicious  tendency  of  the 
present  disorganizing  plan.  Under  the  specious  pretense  of  honoring  the 
Scriptures,  they  would  persuade  you  to  reject  all  written  or  printed  creeds 
and  forms  of  discipline,  alleging  that  those  who  adopt  such  substitute 
them  for  Divine  Inspiration." — (Baird's  Digest,  pp.  638,  639).  History 
repeats  itself!  What  have  we  in  all  these  quotations  but  faces  of  the 
past  answering  to  faces  of  the  present, — a  record  of  facts  and  prin- 
ciples which  have  substantially  gathered  around  the  formation  of  the 
M.  and  M.  L.  Society,  and  which  have  been  so  forcibly  condemned  by 
our  church,  but  for  the  approval  of  which,  Mr.  McCune  avers,  he  has 
the  "  tacit  consent"  of  his  Presbytery.  And  what  is  the  relation  of 
some  of  our  papers  and  church  courts,  under  the  cry  of  union  and 
liberality,  to  these  and  such  like  things?  If  the  past  is  a  light,  the 
present  an  omen,  and  the  signs  are  so  thick  in  the  heavens,  and  so 
many  acknowledged  seers  have  an  "open  vision," it  needs  no  Cassandra, 
foreboding  the  future,  to  point  her  finger,  or  sing  her  prophecy,  con- 
cerning what  is  to  come  ! 


34 

CONCLUSION. 

11.  Finally,  however  much  members  of  the  Presbytery  may  desire 
to  distinguish  between  the  organic  union  principles,  proclaimed  by 
Mr.  McCune  to  the  whole  church  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  many  ir- 
regular ecclesastical  acts  accompanying  them  on  the  other,  or  be 
wiiHng  to  act  with  reference  to  the  latter  alone,  Avhile  ignoring  the 
former,  it  can  not  be  done.  The  two  are  inseparable.  The  last  is  the 
legitimate  fruit  of  the  first,  animated  by  the  principle  of  non-enforce- 
ment of  denominational  law.  Even  had  the  L.  and  M.  L.  Church 
never  existed,  Presbytery  can  not  be  silent  while  hearing  her  ministers 
teach  that  the  Presbyterian  and  all  other  evangelical  denominations, 
as  such,  are  "essentially  sinful"  and  a  "manifest  reproach  to  the 
cause  of  Christ,"  or  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  "no  right  to 
exist "  because  not  built  upon  Mr.  McCune's  "  Divine  law  of  organ- 
ization," or  that  she  is  an  "oppressor  of  the  conscience"  if  enjoining  her 
organic  law  upon  her  ministry.  Better  dissolve  this  Presbytery  at 
once,  and  inaugurate  the  right  of  Brownism,  while  sailing  under  the 
Westminster  standards,  than  allow  this  false  theory  of  toleration  to 
go  on  until  we  dissolve  and  die  by  inches.  The  organization  of  the  L. 
and  M.  L.  church  is,  in  itself  considered,  the  smallest  part  of  the 
great  question  before  us,  and  derives  its  importance  only  from  the 
principles  which  gave  it  birth.  It  is  simply  the  cropping  out  of  the 
first  blade  from  the  dangerous  root  below.  Every  principle  of  Pres- 
byterianism  is  at  stake  in  this  bold  and  open  stand  of  Mr.  Mc^une, 
and  on  this  issue.  Our  system  of  union,  our  distinctive  tenets  of  doc- 
trine and  polity,  our  denominational  law,  the  decisions  of  our  supreme 
court,  our  ordinatiou  vows,  the  conduct  of  our  members  and  ministers, 
our  whole  ecclesiastical  constitution,  the  confidence  of  brother  in 
brother,  our  public  example,  the  peace  unity  and  purity  of  the  churchy 
and  the  respect  due  to  ourselves,  all  are  at  stake. 

Mr.  Moderator,  and  brethren  of  the  Presbytery,  I  have  spoken  in 
this  day  of  latitudinarian  laxity  according  to  the  dictates  of  my  con- 
science and  my  vows.  I  have  sought  to  discharge  a  duty  which  I  felt 
incumbent  upon  me  as  a  Presbyterian  minister,  loyal  to  the  standards 
of  my  church  and  to  the  terms  of  the  late  reunion.  To  Mr.  McCune 
and  all  concerned  in  this  matter  who  differ  from  me,  I  have  nothing 
but  the  kindest  feelings.  I  have  endeavored  to  substantiate  the  posi- 
tions I  have  taken  by  genuine  quotations,  actual  history,  and  reference 
to  the  organic  law  of  the  church.  From  many  persons,  high  in  dis- 
tinction in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  of  ripe  experience,  come 
notes  of  foreboding  and  alarm.    For  myself,  I  would  fain  do  what  in 


35 

me  lies  to  forestall  any  unpropitious  result,  by  meeting  in  time  the 
tendencies  which  threaten  our  peace.  I  fain  would  use  what  ability 
Grod  has  given  me,  little  though  it  be,  to  buttress  the  walls  and  towers 
of  our  Zion  ;  to  "enforce"  upon  the  consciences  of  my  brethren  the 
distinctive  principles  of  our  fiiith  and  order;  to  urge  all  to  "study  the 
things  that  make  for  peace;  '  to  stand  firm  upon  the  traditions,  pre- 
cedents, usages,  deliverances,  and  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  secure  the  ripe  fruit  of  those  fond  hopes  of  the  future, 
our  reunion  so  warmly  ind^ilged.  With  these  concluding  remarks,  I 
submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  Presbytery  what  I  have  spoken  in 
support  of  my  resolution. 


REP  L  Y 


/ 


i^e^.  J.  0--  2>^03>T:FOisrr,  id.id. 


In  his  Editorial  of  May   17,  1S76. 


C  I  N  C  I  N  N  AT  I  : 

GAZETTE    CO..   PRINTERS,   FOURTH    AND    VINE    STREET: 
1876. 


IK  IE  :e=^  I-i  "2". 


AeV.  J.  G.  MONFORT,  D.  D., 

Dear  Sir  : — As  my  reply  to  your  editorial  of  the  17tli  inst,  has 
been  taken  off  and  delayed,  and  by  your  own  action  prevented  from 
appearing  in  the  issue  of  your  paper  immediately  succeeding  the 
one   in  which  your   editorial  was  published,  I  resume  my  pen  to 
write  this   answer.      If  my   former   article   reaches    me  before 
this  is  finished,  I  shall  use  such  parts  of  it  as  I  may  deem  proper.^ 
With  what  seems  to  me  a  strange  impropriety,  you   have   ac- 
cepted a  position  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  to  report  next 
Fall  on   Mr.    McCune's  case,  having  already  given  two  contrary 
decisions  thereupon.      And  now,  being  Chairman,  you  have,  by 
what   seems   to  me  an   equally  strange   impropriety,  devised  an 
editorial,  compounded  of  both  the  above  named  decisions,  while 
affecting  to  be  ignorant  of  the  "facts"  in  the    case,  saying  that 
when  you  wrote  your  editorial  of  Jan.  5,  1876,  defending  Mr. 
McCune's  course,  you  gave  the  facts  as  you  "  supposed  them  to  6e," 
(/),  notwithstanding  two  opposite  and  previous  editorials  of  Nov. 
8,  1873,  and  Aug.  18,  1875,  when  you  wrote  the  facts  as  they 
were  known  by  you  to  be,  and  quoted  from  Mr.  McCune  in  both 
instances,  in  proof  of  your  knowledge  of  the  same.     Finally,  in 
your  editorial  of  May  17,  1876,  you  say  "^f  Dr.  Skinner  is  right 
in  his  facts,  there  is  much  harm  in  many  things,  but  if  the  facts  are 
as  we  stated  in  the  extract  above,  we  still  say  '  there  is  not  much 
harm  in  all  this."     You  then  add,  as  if  affectino;  to  be  ig-norant 
of  the  facts,  "As  to   what   the  facts  are,  Ave  shall  soon  know." 
Your  present  editorial.  May  17, 1876,  is  directed,  after  these  three 
irreconcilable  attitudes    of  pro,  anti,  and  neutrum,  yes,   no,  aiid 
neither,  plus  a  petition  for  "suspense"  of  public  judgement,  to  a 
ustification  of  yourself  chiefly,  of  the  Presbytery  subordinately, 

*  Dr.  Monfoi't  has  written  four  special  editorials  on  this  subject;  one  Nov.  8.  1373,  an- 
other Aug.  18,  1875;  both  against  Mr.  McCuue;  the  third  .'an.  .''>,  187i;,  for  Mr.  McCune,  after 
the  couiicil  had  met;  the  fourth  May  17,  187(3,  in  suspeu.^e,  and  which  1  here  review.  T.  II.  S. 


[4] 

and  to  a  condemnation  of  me,  making  a  concluding  dash  at  what 
you  are  pleased  to  call  "  Dr.  Skinner's  high  sectarian  position," 
thus  adopting  the  favorite  expression  of  Mr.  McCune  as  your 
own. 

In  reply,  therefore,  to  your  editorial  of  May  17,  1876,  I  pro- 
pose to  show,  (1),  what  you  well  knew  as  to  the  facts,  better  than 
myself,  and  which  justified  your  editorials  of  Nov.8, 1873,  and  Aug. 
18,  1875,  both  adverse  to  Mr.  McCune's  course,  and  the  answer 
which  Mr.  McCune  made  to  you  in  both  cases;  and  (2),  that, 
knowing  these  facts,  you  carefully  avoided  them  in  your  editorial 
of  Jan.  5,  1876,  written  to  defend  the  L.  and  M.  L.  organizations, 
Mr.  McCune's  course,  and  the  course  of  Messrs.  Morris,  Morey, 
and  White,  who  sat  in  the  undelegated  and  irresponsible  Council, 
to  re-examine  and  install  Mr.  McCune,  without  leave  of  Presby- 
tery, in  contravention  of  Presbyterian  law  and  order;  and  (3),  to 
consider  such  other  points  of  the  editorial,  as  time  and  space 
permit. 

I.  You  well  knew  Mr.  McCune's  views.  I  briefly  quote  them : — 
(1).  As  to  denominations  in  general.  "  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
has  left  on  record  no  provisions  in  the  New  Testament  for  the 
organization  of  different  denominations."  '  I  am  entirely  opposed 
to  the  division  of  the  church  into  denominations.'  'They  are 
essentially  sinful,  and  a  manifest  reproach  to  the  cause  of  Christ." 
(2).  As  to  the  divine  non-excluding  Law  of  Organization, 
grounding  cJiurch  order  in  a  text,  relating  to  things  jiurely  in- 
different, Receive  ye  one  another,  &c.,  Rom.  xv,  vii.  "This  is  a 
precept  that  applies  to  ministers  as  well  as  members."  "Any 
Christian  minister  has  a  right  to  membership  in  any  Conference 
Association  or  Presbytery  in  Christendom." 

(3).  As  to  reorganization  of  the  Neiv  Testament  church.  "God, 
in  his  Providence,  urgently  calls  upon  ail  Christ's  disciples  to 
make  immediate  prayerful  preparation  for  the  Ncav  Testament 
organization  of  the  church,  in  every  place." 

(4).  As  to  extended  church  creeds.  "  The  enlargement  of  the 
creed  is  an  unblushing  assumption  of  prerogative,  in  the  Protestant 
church." 

(5).  As  to  ordination  vieivs.  "The  Presbyterian  church  only 
asks  men  at  their  ordination,  what  their  present  views  are,  and 


[5] 

never  pledges  tliem  not  to  change  their  views."  "No  true  Prot- 
estant needs  be  convinced  of  the  falsity  of  every  argument  that 
is  framed  to  prove  that  it  has  become  necessary  to  enlarge  the 
creeds  of  the  primitive  church." 

(6.)  As  to  plurality  of  Official  Membership !  How  to  he  anti- 
denominational,  and  yet  deiiominational !  Sow  to  he  separate,  and 
yet  not  separate  !  Hoio  to  he  a  unity,  and  yet  d\iality  !  "  Any 
minister  who  has  adopted  this  basis,  (the  new  basis),  but  who 
does  not  deemit  expedient  to  sever  existing  denominational  relations, 
shall,  at  his  request,  be  enrolled  notwithstanding ^  "  All  ministers 
and  churches  adopting  this  basis,  including  all  who  may  not 
have  severed  heretofore  existing  denominational  relations,  are  in- 
vited to  attend  this  Convention."     (Suffolk,  Va.,  1875.) 

(7).  As  to  denominational  'peeidiaritlei  in  the  reception  of  ministers. 
"We  require  7io  assent  to  any  denominational  peculiarity,  as  a 
condition  of  fellowship." 

(8).  As  to  the  covenant  of  God  with  believers,  in  behalf  of  their  off- 
spring. '■'■1  utterly  repudiate  the  doctrine  of  infant  church  mem- 
bership." "  Such  a  thing  may  linger  among  certain  High 
Churchmen." 

(9).  As  to  a  definition  of  the  New  Testament  church.  "It  consists  of 
believers,  and  believers  o)ily."  "  Some  would  add,  and  also  includes 
the  children,  but  this  is  no  part  of  the  common  faith." 

(10).  As  to  Infant  Baptism.  "  The  Presbyterian  Church  has 
ceased  to  enforce  Infant  Baptism !  " 

(11).  As  to  admitting  Unhaptised  persons  to  full  Communion. 
"  I  would  vote  to  receive  any  who  can  give  satisfactory  evidence, 
that  he  is  a  true  Christian  and  cheerfully  grant  him  forbearance, 
as  a  fellow  member  in  the  church,  although  he  has  the  views  of  the 
"  Friends  "  concerning  Water  Baptism.''^ 

(12).  As  to  the  Term  of  Church  Membership,  excluding  Bap- 
tism and  pledge  of  obedience  to  the  church.  "  Faith  in  Christ  is 
the  07dy  New  Testament  requirement  for  Church  Membership.''^ 

(13).  As  to  Roman  Catholic  Membership.  "  I  would  most  cer- 
tainly admit  Roman  Catholics  as  members  of  my  congregation." 

Such  are  the  views  and  principles  Mr.  McCune  has  taught,  and 
which  Dr.  Montfort  well  knows,  and  knew  when  he  wrote  his 
editorials.     Of  these  Mr.  McCune  says,  "  I   am   advocating  no 


sentiments,  now  that  I  have  not  openly  proclaimed  for  ten  pears. 
I  enjoyed  unquestioned  liberty  to  teach  them  until  Dr.  Skinner 
made  his  attack."  Dr.  Monfort  in  his  editorial  of  Nov.  8,  1873, 
takes  Mr.  McCune  to  task,  saying,  Mr.  McCune's  views  are  pecu- 
liar in  some  respects !  Perhaps  the  following  extracts  from  his 
first  issue  may  furnish  our  readers  with  a  key  to  his  scheme.^' 
Again,  it  will  be  seen  that  Brother  McCune  aims  at  a  great 
change  in  the  churches.''''  -"Again;  there  is  a  wide  difference 
of  opinion  among  evangelical  Christians  as  to  what  is  Christian 
unity  and  what  is  demanded  in  the  matter  of  organic  Christian 
Union."  To  this  criticism  by  Dr.  Monfort,  Mr.  McCune  replies 
Nov.  15,  1873,  saying,  "we  think  there  is  no  occasion  at  all  for 
alann!"  "It.  will  not  injure  the  chnrhces  at  all  to  conform  to  the  will 
of  Christ  in  this  matter!  "  My  views  on  this  subject  are  the  same 
views  which  are  held  by  a  large  number  of  the  members  of  Dr.  Mon- 
forfs  oion  Presbytery,  including  some  of  the  oldest  and  most  in- 
f.uential  'members !  "  "  The  statement  that  Mr.  McCune's  views 
are  peculiar  in  some  respects,  will,  wherever  it  is  believed,  create 
a  serious  and  unjust  prejudice,  and  therefore,  we  ask  the  Herald 
and  Presbyter  to  make  suitable  correction!'"  Chr.  Un.,  Nov.  15, 
1873.  I  ask,  now,  in  view  of  these  statements  whether  you  knew 
or  did  not  know  the  "  facts  "  as  to  Mr.  McCune's  views,  and 
whether  they  are  not  as  I  stated  in  my  Preamble,  antagonistic  to 
the  faith  and  order  of  our  church  ?  I  ask  you  if  the  ministers  in 
this  region  did  not  know  them  also  ? 

II.  When  after  temporary  suspension,  the  Christian  Unity,  re- 
appeared Aug.  1, 1875,  with  Messrs.  Melish,  Wellons  and  McCune 
as  conjunct  editors,  and  while  Mr.  McCune  was  actually  working 
up  the  L.  and  M.  L.  organization  and  only  three  months  before 
it  was  born,  and  only  four  before  the  Council  met,  you  thus  spoke 
again,  quoting  expressions  from  Mr.  McCune. 

(1).  "  We  dontknow  the  meaning  of  "Organic  Christian  Unitv," 
a  "Home  and  Place  for  Worship  and  Work,"  "  one  body  as  well  as 
one  spirit,"  "organization  and  co-operation,"  which  are  expressions 
used  by  these  editors  in  regard  to  their  project,  unless  they  are 
now,  or  expect  to  be,  a  separate  body  from  the  sects,  as  they  call 
others,"  H.  and  P.,  Aug.  18,  1875. 

(2).  Again,  you  speak  with  no  uncertain  tone  in  condemnation 


[7] 

of  Mr.  McCune's  course.  "  Mr.  McCune  is  a  public  minister 
subject  to  Presbytery,  as  yet,  which  moreover  is  an  unauthorised 
body  according  to  his  views  announced  above;  Mr.  Melish  is  a 
Baptist  and  a  member  of  a  Baptist  Church,  and  Dr.  Wellons  is 
connected  with  a  church  called  Christian.  If  these  bretheren  are 
either /or  organization  and  association,  or  are  ahead)/  organized 
and  associated,  the  external  bond  being  the  Convention  which  met 
in  New  York,  1873,  in  Cincinnati,  1874,  in  Suffolk,  Va.,  1875, 
loe  are  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  Mr.  McCune  or  Mr.  Melish- can  he  will- 
ing to  retain  a  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  or  Baptist  Church !  We 
should  suppose  that  each  would  pass  at  once  from  an  old  organization 
that  is  unauthorized  and  extra  scriptural  to  a  new  one  on  a  New  Testa- 
ment Basis!''  H.  and  P.,  Aug.  18,  1875.  I  respectfully  ask 
again,  did  you  know  or  did  you  not  know  the  "  facts  "  when  you 
penned  this  criticism  ?  That  you  could  not  be  an  uninterested 
spectator  is  manifest  from  the  reply  which  Mr.  McCune  ad- 
dressed to  you  on  this  occasion  inviting  you  also,  in  turn,  to  take 
leave  of  the  Presbytery.  "  You  suggest,"  says  Mr.  McCune, 
"  that  inasmuch  as  I  am  an  advocate  of  Organic  Christian  Union, 
there  is  something  dishonorable,  if  not  sinful,  in  my  continuance 
as  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati.  "  Your  columns 
have  contained  pleas  for  a  Union  with  Cumberland  Presbyterians, 
who  certainly  could  not  accept  the  Westminster  Confession  at 
all.  If  the  advocacy  of  Union  is  an  iniquity  to  be  punished  by 
the  judges,  'S<;e  are  at  a  loss  to  understand,"  what  right  you  have  to 
be  a  member  of  Cincinnati  Presbytery  !  When  the  Christian 
Unity  first  appeared,  you  declared,  you  felt  a  profound  interest 
in  ^^  Christian  Unity,"  and  you  said,  "  u'e  have  given  and  expect  to  give, 
much  space  to  it  in  our  paper."  "Now  my  hrother,  I  proj^ose  that 
my  name  shall  stand  on  the  roll  of  Presbytery  as  long  as  I  re- 
main in  Cincinnati  and  vicinity.^'  "  You  could  remedy  the  mat- 
ter, so  far  as  you  personally  are  concerned,  by  asking  for  yourself 
a  letter  of  dismissal !  The  true  practical  remedy,  if  your  conscience 
will  not  allow  you  to  extend  ministerial  fellowship  to  me  in  Vrea- 
hjter  J  is  for  you  yourself  to  withdraw  I  And  if  you  should  take  no 
measures  in  Presbytery  to  break  the  fellowship  hitherto  exist- 
ing, J  sliall  conclude  that  you  really  have  no  conscience  in  the  matter  V 
Christian  Unity,  Oct.,  1875.  Again  I  ask,  did  you  know  the  "  facts," 


[8] 

when  Mr.  McCune  politely  invited  you  out  of  your  own  church, 
as  you  had  politely  invited  him  out  of  the  same  ?  All  this  was 
only  six  weeks  before  the  L.  and  M.  L.  organization  ! 

And  noAV,  Mr.  McGune  persisting  in  his  work,  with  your  own 
knowledge,  and  having  published  and  spread  broadcast  his  new 
creed,  basis,  preliminary  statements,  terms  of  fellowship  and  regu- 
lations of  expediency,  and  I  having  received  from  his  committee- 
men an  invitation  to  sit  in  the  extemporised  council  to  re-ex- 
amine and  install  Mr.  McCune,  and  recognize  his  new  church,  and 
having  been  solicited  by  Dr.  Morris  to  take  part  in  the  same,  I 
addressed  to  Dr.  Morris  the  following  friendly  interposition  and 
declinature.  I  deem  it  proper  to  insert  this  in  order  to  "  protect' 
myself  now  against  "  erroneous  impressions  "  and  '•  serious  ani- 
madversions."    It  is  as  follows  : 

Cincinnati,  Dec.  14,  1875. 

Dear  Bro.  Morris — Ton  must  act  in  the  matter  of  the  "  Union  Christian 
Church"  -without  my  concurrence.  I  wrote  to  Bro.  McCune,  declining  his 
invitation  to  participate  in  its  "recognition,"  and  used  these  words — "The 
principles  involved  in  your  organization,  would,  if  I  understand  them,  be  des- 
tructive of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  were  they  successfully  and  generally 
carried  out.  Marching,  as  I  do,  under  the  banner  of  this  church,  and  sacredly 
pledged,  as  I  am,  to  ^'^  study  its  peace,  unity  and  purity,"  1  can  not  reconcile  it 
with  my  conscience  or  sense  of  honor,  to  put  my  imprimatur  on  your  course, 
while  you  are  still  a  member  of  the  Presbytery.  *  *  Had  I  thought  or  felt 
as  you  have  done  on  the  subject  of  church  polity  and  creeds,  before  1  acted  in 
the  organization  of  a  church  within  the  bonds  of  the  Presbytery,  and  yet  out 
of  its  jurisdiction,  I  would  have  dissolved  my  connection  with  the  Presbytery, 
and  so  have  been  released  from  my  vows  of  fealty  and  service  to  the  Presby- 
terian Church."  The  reading  of  your  letter  in  no  way  changes  my  views. 
One  expression  in  it  suggests  the  ground  on  which  I  have  found  myself  in  op- 
position to  some  of  my  brethren  on  other  matters  since  I  have  been  in  Cincin- 
nati. "This  is  better  than  *  »  *  *  to  involve  issues  on  points  not 
vital."  Obsta  principiis  is  an  old  and  useful  maxim,  and  if  we  are  to  allow 
and  favor  departures  from  the  faith  and  order  of  our  church  until  ''vital" 
points  are  assailed,  our  vows  and  covenants  with  the  church  are  of  little 
worth.  A  wide  door  is  thus  opened  to  irregularities  and  contentions,  which 
is  hardly  consistent  with  '^ sticdy'mg"  the  "peace,  unity  and  purity"  of  the 
body.  Bro.  McCune  is  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  under  the 
same  vows  with  the  other  members,  and  if  liberty  and  sanction  were  given  to 
us  all  to  go  and  do  likewise,  the  Presbytery  would  soon  be  disorganized  and 
destroyed.  His  whole  movement  is  in  direct  contravention  of  Presbytorianism, 
To  join  with  him  in  the  circumstances,  and  in  the  manner  proposed,  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  sitting  in  a  Cougregational  Council,  or  serving  at  the  in- 


[9] 

stallation  of  a  minister  in  a  body  with  whom  wc  hold  official  fraternal  rela- 
tions. I  think  your  action  will  impress  our  church  at  large  very  unfavorably. 
Your  position  as  Moderator  of  the  last  Assembly,  and  Professor  of  Theology, 
is  such  as  to  call  attention  to  your  connection  with  this  enterprise.  I  was  told 
yesterday,  b/  one  who  ought  to  know,  that  your  name  would  be  used  in  the 
"  Union  "  organ  as  a  sanction  to  their  whole  movement.  Four  or  five  of  our 
brethren,  whom  I  casually  met,  without  the  least  load  on  my  part  in  the  mat- 
ter, took  precisely  the  view  I  do;  and  I  have  been  congratulated  on  being 
with  them  now,  though  parted  from  them  on  other  questions.  An  outside 
minister,  an  elder,  and  a  leading  Presbyterian  citizen,  have  expressed  similar 
sentiments.  If  this  experience  of  a  single  day  is  any  sign  of  the  feelings  that 
will  be  aroused  when  the  thing  is  fully  known,  I  think  we  will  have  some  dis- 
cussion in  the  papers  upon  the  binding  character  of  Presbyterial  vows,  and  of 
the  validity  of  the  Presbyterian  organization.  The  Union  Christian  Church, 
at  Linwocd,  &c.,  is  organized,  recognized,  and  a  pastor  installed  by  one  or 
more  Presbyterian  ministers  in  the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati, 
"without  permission  or  direction  from  the  Presbytery," — a  church  which  ex- 
ists professedly  as  a  standing  protest  against  the  Presbyterian  and  all  other 
evangelical  denominations.  To  say  that  the  published  principles  that  accom- 
panied our  invitation  are  "  no  part  of  the  basis  of  the  church,"  is  of  no  avail, 
when  the  church  itself  originated  in  those  principles,  and  its  purpose  is  to 
stand  upon  and  propagate  them.  Bro.  McCune,  notoriously  their  earnest  pro- 
mulgator and  defender,  is  to  be  its  pastor.  But  I  must  not  say  more.  I  have 
given  you  some  of  the  reasons  why  I  can  not  unite  with  you  in  the  services  of 
to-morrow.     1  have  been  equally  frank  with  Bro.  McCune. 

Yours  in  the  love  of  truth  and  order, 

Thomas  H.  Skikner. 

Having  informed  you  of  this  correspondence,  in  your  own  office, 
I  ask  you  again  did  you  know  the  "  facts  ?" 

The  organization  out  of  five  different  denominations  was  com- 
pleted, yourself,  myself,  and  others,  in  your  own  office,  discussing 
both  the  principles  of  Mr.  McCune,  the  character  and  aim  of  the 
new  church,  and  the  points  of  Presbyterian  law  that  Avould  be 
violated.  These  points  we  all  know.  (1.)  The  Eldership  was 
thrown  aside,  and  the  Diaconate,  for  mere  committeemen.  (2.)Their 
official  titles  were  thrown  aside,  (3.)  Ordination  was  thrown 
aside.  (4.)  The  authority  of  the  Presbytery  over  Mr.  McCune, 
and  his  co-presbyters  assisting  him,  was  throAvn  aside.  (5.)  The 
Westminster  standards  were  thrown  aside.  (6.)  The  Presbyterian 
name  was  thrown  aside.  In  ten  particulars,  organic  law  was 
violated,  notwithstanding  brotherly  advice  to  the  contrary.  See 
my  Pamphlet  pp.  19,  20.    In  the  installation  sermon  preached  by 


[10] 

JDr.  Morris  on  the  occasion  when  these  things  occurred,  Dr. 
Morris  used  the  following  language,  knowing  the  "  facts "  in 
common  with  the  rest  of  his  brethren.  "  It  may  be  that  the  best 
contribution  which  we  in  this  preparatory  age  can  make  to  the 
grand  Millenial  Unity  that  is  surely  coming  will  be  found  in  such 
fellowship  as  this ;  in  the  dropping  oif  of  differences  wherever 
we  find  it  practicable,  etc."  Gazette,  December  17, 1875.  And  so 
the  aifair  was  consummated,  Messrs.  Morris,  Morey,  and  McCune 
of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati  assisting,  notwithstanding  your 
two  editorials  of  August  18,  1875,  and  November  8, 1873.  I  ask 
again,  did  you  know  the  "  facts  ?"  Believing  you  will  answer 
affirmatively  and  will  say  that  you  gave  the  "facts"  in  your  editorial 
of  January  5,  1876,  saying,  "  we  will  first  give  the  facts," 
I  now  invite  your  attention  to  the  important  circumstance,  that 
like  Micaiah  son  of  Imlah,  prophet  of  Samaria,  tuning  his  voice 
to  suit  the  time,  you  suddenly  sang  a  contradictory  decision, 
to  all  the  above,  and  as  suddenly  awoke  a  complete  defense  of 
Mr.  McCune's  views  and  his  new  movement.  Among  other  things, 
you  say  of  the  whole  affair, 

(1.)  "  In  all  this  there  is  not  much  cause  for  alarm."  Precisely 
what  Mr.  McCune  said  ;  "  there  is  no  occasion  at  all  for  alarm  !"  What 
cause,  then,  I  ask  Avas  there  for  your  editorials  against  Mr.  McCune 
previous  to  the  'organization,  in  which  you  charge  him  with 
"  peculiar  vieivs"  and  aiming  at  a  "  great  change  in  the  churches" 
and  calling  his  Presbytery  an  "tinauthorked  body?" 

(2.)  You  palliate  again,  saying  "  Independent  churches  are  no 
new  thing  under  the  sun  in  this  country,  even  Independent  Pres- 
byterian churches  like  the  church  over  which  Mr.  McCune  has 
been  placed  !"  Why  then  did  you  say,  that  you  were  "  at  a  loss 
to  understand  "  how  Mr.  McCune  could  retain  his  connexion  with 
the  Presbytery,  if  he  was  either  for  organization  or  had  already 
organized,  and  invite  him  to  pass  out  ? 

(3.)  You  say,  "  the  Observer's  article  professes  to  find  Dr.  Morris 
assisting  in  the  establishment  of  an  undenominational  organization, 
while  he  only  accepted  an  invitation  to  take  part  in  a  council 
invited  by  an  organized  church  ?"  And  was  this  all,  in  view  of 
the  correspondence  with  Dr.  Morris  before  the  council  met !  Was 
this  all,  in  view  of  the  "  ten  years  "  aim  of  Mr.  McCune,  and  of 
his  position  that  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati  was  an  "unauthorized 


['ll  ] 

body  ?"  You  say  you  knew  the  "facts,"  and  reprove  the  Observer's 
"  lame  attempt "  as  you  call  it,  to  give  an  account  of  Mr.  McCune's 
views  and  course.  Was  there  nothing  then  after  all  "  very  pec2i- 
liar,"  no  ^^ great  change"  after  all? 

(4.)  You  say  again,  "Mr.  McCune  is  regarded  by  all  who  1  now 
him,  as  honest  and  humble.  Moreover  his  peculiar  vieivs  are  not 
new  to  him !"  Why  then  did  you  invite  him  to  leave  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  solely  on  account  of  his  "peculiar"  views  and 
aim,  even  before  the  organization  ? 

(5.)  You  say,  "  Presbytery  do  not  believe  that  Mr.  McCune  has 
taken  charge  of  L.  and  M.  L.  for  the  purpose  of  waging  a  Avarfare 
against  Presbyterian  order,  which  he  has  sworn  that  he  approves !"  And 
this  you  say,  knowing  the  facts  that  in  no  less  than  teyi  particulars 
this  very  Presbyterian  order  was  put  under  foot  by  Mr.  McCune 
assisted  by  three  co-presbyters,  and  that  Mr.  McCune  regarded 
his  Presbytery  as  an  ^^unauthorized  body F'  Is  not  this  a  defense  of 
the  whole  affair,  the  oncoming  shadow  of  which  you  previously 
twice  condemned? 

(6).  You  say  "there  is  a  general  expectation  that  Mr.  McCune  will 
not  use  his  present  position  to  agitate  his  peculiar  notions  in  the 
way  of  a  crusade  against  the  denominations  united  in  his  church. 
If  he  does,  sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof !"  That  is, 
after  Mr.  McCune  has  given  bodily  form  to  his  peculiar  notions  as  to 
union  and  organization  and  the  thing  was  already  done,  you  say, 
"if  he  shall  do  siich  a  thing,  it  Avill  be  time  to  attend  to  his  case. 
What  is  this  but  suppressio  veri,  as  the  logicians  call  it  ?  And 
what  has  become  of  the  fabled  general  expectation  ?"  "  We  are 
at  a  loss  to  understand "  why  you  do  not  invite  him  to  '■'■pass 
at  once"  from  his  relations,  now  that  his  peculiar  views  have  taken 
bodily  form,  when  you  invited  him  to  do  so  before  such  form  was 
assumed? 

(7).  You  say  Mr.  McCune  is  in  good  standing  and  his  new 
church  has  adopted  standards  which  are  more  like  or  less  unlike 
ours  than  the  doctrinal  standards  of  any  other  evangelical  people 
and  the  same  is  true  of  their  mode  of  organization.''  Hung  be 
the  heavens  with  black !  Thunder  does  not  more  astound 
than  such  a  proposition  as  this !  Let  the  reader  turn  to 
Mr.  McCune's  peculiar  views  given  above,  and  to  the    violations 


[12] 

of  Presbyterian   law  in    this  whole    affair,    and    then  weigh   Dr. 
Monfort's  estimate  "of  more  like"  and  "less  unlike!" 

Such  is  the  defense  you  have  made  for  Mr,  McCune  and  his 
organization  and  views  in  your  editorial  of  Jan.  5,  1876,  an  edi- 
torial you  reproduced,  by  quotations,  in  your  paper  of  May  17, 
1876,  after  omitting  all  the  essential  facts  in  the  case,  which 
you  knew  all  the  time,  and  giving  only  the  outward  appearance 
of  things,  so  as  to  enable  you  to  say  '■Hhere  is  not  much  harm  in 
all  this  r  You  resurrect  your  own  carefully  prepared  and  de- 
fective statement,  from  which  any  mention  of  the  peculiar  views 
and  violations  of  law  is  studiously  eliminated,  as  testimony  in 
the  case,  and  then  say,  "these  are  the  facts  as  we  supposed  them 
to  be,"  and  tliey  did  not  furnish  much  cause  for  alarm."  Sup- 
posed them  to  be  !  I  have  shown  that  you  knew  them  to  be  more 
than  what  you  supposed  to  be,  and  the  discussions  between  your- 
self, myself,  and  others,  in  your  own  editorial  rooms,  both  before 
and  after  the  organization,  are  also  proof  of  this.  When  ^you 
wrote  the  words  "m  all  this  there  is  not  much  cause  for  alarm." 
^^ There 8  not  much  harm  in  all  this."  "There  is  not  much  harm  in  Mr. 
3fcCune's  taking  charge  of  s^ich  a  church."  "Moreover  his  peculiar  views 
arenotnew  with  him." — when  you  wrote  this,  you  were  aware  what 
Mr.  McCune's  views  were  and  had  been  for  "ten  years,''  and  what 
the  violations  of  Presbyterian  law  Avere,  in  the  birth  of  his  new 
Society.  You  Avere  aware  that  Mr.  McCune  viewed  his  own 
Presbytery  as  an  "unauthorized  body,"  that  you  had  warned 
him  to  leave  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  that  he  had  as  po- 
litely returned  you  the  compliment.  You  were  aware  that  he 
said,  if  you  took  no  measures  to  break  the  fellowship,  he  should 
conclude  that  you  really  '%ad  no  conscience  in  the  matter."  You  were 
aware  that  Mr.  McCune's  aim  was  to  drop  off  the  distinctive 
principles  of  Presbyterianism.  In  short,  you  were  aware  that 
every  line  in  my  preamble  was  true  to  the  letter,  and  that  all 
these  views  and  violations  of  law  were  commom  talk  throughout 
the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery,  and  you  say  in  your  editor- 
ial of  May  17,  1876,  that  "the  reports  were  7wt  as  de- 
scribed in  his  (my)  Preamble,  and  the  Presbytery  was  not  willing 
for  Dr.  S.  to  declare  and  discuss  his  alleged  reports  in  advance 
of  the  proposed  investigation,"  and  in  addition  to  all  this,  affect 


[13] 

to  be  ignorant  of  the  facts,  saying,  "PFe  shall  soonhnow  ivhat  the  facts 
aver 

Thus  have  you  assumed  three  distinct  positions  in  this  whole 
matter.  The  first  adverse,  the  second  favorable,  the  third  in  sus- 
pense. The  first  time  knowing  the  facts  and  condemning,  the 
second  time  knowing  the  facts  and  avoiding  and  defending,  the 
third  time  averring  that  the  knowledge  of  the  facts  was  mere  sup- 
position, and  compounding  an  editorial  out  of  the  adverse  and  favor- 
able decisions  already  given,  while  holding  yourself  ready,  as 
Chairman  of  the  Committee,  to  give  another  decision  when  the 
time  shall  come. 

I  think  most  persons  would  prefer  the  consistent,  frank,  and 
manly  course  of  Mr.  McCune,  even  in  an  indefensable  cause,  to 
the  double  and  triple  method  and  policy  of  pro,  anti,  and  neutritm, 
adopted  in  your  editorials. 

III.     As  to  some  other  points  in  your  editorial. 

1.  Your  present  and  alleged  reason  for  the  non  publication  of 
the  article  I  offered  you  is  utterly  different  from  the  one  and 
only  reason  you  personally  gave  me  at  the  time  you  rejected  it. 
I  trust  you  will  observe  that  the  section  of  the  Discipline  to 
which  you  refer  now  as  a  reason  for  your  action  then,  did  not 
occur  to  you  at  that  time,  and  that,  moreover,  it  has  no  relation 
to  the  case.  It  is  quoted  from  the  chapter  on  "private  offences," 
Avhereas  this  was  a  '■'■fama  clamosa." 

2.  In  answer  to  my  position  as  to  my  constitutional  right 
which  was  overslaughed  by  turning  it  into  a  point  of  order,  you 
again  carefully  omit  any  allusion  to  the  law  of  the  church,  and  to 
the  abundant  references  I  have  made.  You  set  up  a  man  of 
straw,  then  demolish  it,  by  a  quotation  of  purely  forensic  charac- 
ter inapplicable  to  the  case,  and  think  you  have  answered  my 
proposition  in  reference  to  the  general  supervisory  Episcopal 
power  of  the  church,  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  formally  "ac- 
cused" persons,  and  which  Mr.  McCune  was  not. 

3.  The  paper  you  say  you  had  "prepared"  and  "thought  of 
offering,"  you  also  thouo;lit  of  not  offering.  It  was  after  my  speech, 
preamble  and  resolution  had  been  turned  out  of  doors,  I  asked 
you  if  you  intended  to  offer  said  paper,  to  which  you  responded, 
"I  think  not;"  whereupon  I  answered,  "then  I  will  offer  my  pa- 


[14] 

per,"  and  made  my  second  attempt  to  speak,  the  defeat  of  which 
had  been  already  secured  by  yourself,  Dr.  Morris,  and  others. 
You  say  you  drew  your  paper  in  view  of  the  rule  of  discipline, 
which  provides  for  a  private  conference  "  with  an  accused  person." 
You  are  aware  that  rule  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question,  for 
it  is  taken  from  the  chapter  which  pertains  to  "  actual  process ;" 
and  that  the  term  ^'•accu^ed''  is  a  forensic  term,  and  could  not  re- 
late to  Mr.  McCune. 

4.  With  an  air  of  authority,  you  say  "  we  (J.  G.  Monfort,  D.D.) 
were  careful  to  pledge  for  ourjPresbytery,  that  disloyalty  to  our  form 
of  our  government  would  not  be  toleratep."  This  is  generous,  and 
deservs  the  thanks  of  that  body.  The  sponsorship  Avas  not  less  re- 
markable than  the  fulfilment.  Mr.  McCune  says,  notwithstanding 
such  pledge,  that  he  had  indoctrinated  the  resbytery  for  ''ten years" 
in  his  ''peculiar  views"  and  that  the  "same  views"\fere  held  by  not  a  few 
in  his  Presbytery.  Have  you  forgotten  that  Mr.  McCune  was  told 
by  you  to  step  out  of  his  church  because  of  these  vietvs,  or  that  he 
regarded  his  Presbytery  as  an  "unauthorized  body,"  and  his  denom- 
ination as  "anti-scripturar  and  "essentially  sinful,'  or  that  he  con- 
tinued to  preach,  publish,  and  propagate  the  same,  and  finally  or- 
ganized a  new  enterprise,  overriding  the  entire  standards  of  his 
church'?  Are  you  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  at  a  regular  adjourned 
meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  immediately  after  the  organization,  I 
proposed  an  interlocutory  in  reference  to  Mr.  McCune's  case,  and 
Presbytery  could  have  acted  if  it  had  so  desired.  Are  you 
ignorant  that  Dr.  Morris  affirmed  that  if  Presbytery  should  take 
any  action  at  its  last  meeting  reflecting  on  Mr.  McCune  he  would 
take  it  as  a  "  personal  aff"ront "  to  himself,  and  did  what  he  could 
to  prevent  action,  notwithstanding  his  amendment  to  Dr.  Monforts 
motive  for  a  personal  interview  with  Mr.  McCune  ?  Are  you 
ignorant  ofthe  fact  that  notwithstanding  your  pledge,  the  Pres- 
bytery still  tolerated  Mr.  McCune  in  face  of  your  two  editorials 
adverse  to  him,  and  even  yet  more,  actually  enrolled  him  as 
a  "  pastor "  at  its  last  meeting,  thereby  giving  sanction  to  his 
relation  to  the  L.  and  M.  L.  Church,  and  recognizing  the 
validity  of  his  installation  ?  Of  what  value,  then,  are  your 
pledges?  What  does  "to/frafe"  mean,  or  what  does  '^disloyalty'' 
mean  ?     What  can  they  mean  in  \our  judgment,  except  that  Mr. 


[15] 

McCune's  course  has  been  "right,  wise,  and  commendable"  as 
Dr.  Morris  alleges,  and  that  "there  is  not  much  cause  for  alarm 
in  all  this,"  as  you  yourself  say — a  saying  which  is  only  the  echo  of 
the  words  of  Mr.  McCune,"  there  is  no  occasion  at  all  for  alarm!" 

(5.)  You  say  that  Mr.  McCune  denies  much  that  Dr.  Skinner 
charges.  Certainly.  And  did  he  not  deny  much  that  you  said 
also,  asking  you  to  make  "  suitable  correction."  Of  what  value 
then  is  this  statement  ?  You  say  "  the  committee  will  spare  no 
pains  to  get  at  the  facts."  Your  work  will  not  be  very  great. 
My  pamphlet  and  present  reply  will  I  trust  facilitate  your  labors. 
You  add  that  my  speech  "  reflects  severely  upon  the  Presbytery 
and  upon  several  individual  members  of  it."  I  am  sorry  for 
this,  but  see  no  way  to  help  it.  Has  it  never  occurred  to  you 
that  your  editorial  of  Aug.  18,  1875,  reflects  severely  upon  Mr. 
McCune,  a  member  of  this  Presbytery,  and,  by  consequence, 
upon  the  Presbytery  itself,  for  its  indulgence  of  Mr.  McCune, 
perhaps  not  any  more  severely  than  you  will  regard  this  reply  as 
reflecting  on  yourself? 

In  conclusion,  I  understand  that  you,  with  others,  have  taken 
umbrage,  because  my  resolution  states  that  Mr.  McCune's  views 
and  course  are  "inconsistent  with  membership  in  the  Presby- 
tery." How  indignant,  then,  must  both  you  and  they  be,  at  the 
recollection  of  your  own  editorial  of  Aug.  18,  1875,  when,  as  Mr. 
McCune  says,  you  suggested  to  him  that  there  was  something 
^' dishonorable,  if  not  sinfid,'' in  his  ^'continuance  as  a  mevxber  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cincinnati"  and  invited  him,  with  somewhat  of  a  cool 
and  sarcastic  tone,  to  "pass  at  once  from  his  old,  unauthorized  extra- 
scriptural  organization,  to  a  new  one  on  a  New  Testament  basis  !!''  Will 
you  kindly  permit  me  to  suggest  that  "  ive  are  at  a  loss  to  understand" 
how  that  which  is  proper  for  you  to  do,  should  be  improper  for 
me  to  imitate?  The  parable  of  David  and  the  ewe  lamb  occurs 
to  us,  unbidden  but  not  unwelcome. 

I  respectfully  suggest  that  it  is  neither  "  right,  wise  nor  com- 
mendable "  for  you  to  hold  up,  as  you  do,  in  your  editorial,  to 
which  this  reply  is  written,  the  Organic  law  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  to  invidious  judgment,  by  expressing  your  want  of  sym- 
pathy with,  what  you  call  in  common  with  Mr.  McCune,  Dr. 
Skinner's  high  sectarian  position  !  "     It  is  not  at  me  you  strike 


[16] 

but  at  jour  own  church  and  its  constitution,  which  you  and  Mr. 
McCune  have  both  "  sivorn  that  you  approve  !  "  My  "  position  '" 
is  simply  upon  the  Organic  Law  of  our  denomination.  I  submit 
that  no  editor,  nor  minister,  nor  ekler,  under  solemn  ordination 
vows,  and  no  session,  presbytery,  synod,  nor  assembly,  has  any 
right  to  disparage,  in  public  or  private,  the  Organic  Law  of  the 
church  as  "  high  sectarian"  by  disparaging  the  "  position "  of 
those  who  fiiithfuUy  seek  to  maintain  it. 

Yours  for  truth  and  order,    ■ 

Thomas  H.  Skinner. 


THE  COMPLAIN 


•^OliiG. 


Rev.  Thomas  H.  Skinner, 


.^a-.^^JE^Tsa:   t^ce 


\^ 


M 


w^lgif  I  fff 


AT   ITS   FALL   MEETING,    1876, 


WITH  THE 


ARGUMENT. 


CINCINNATI: 

GAZETTE   COMPANY    PRINT,    FOURTH   AND    VINE   STREETS, 
1876. 


^I^NTRODUCTION 


WITHIN  less  than  a  year  I  have  been,  three  several  times,  deprived 
of  my  constitutional  rights  as  a  free  Presbyter  under  the  very 
banner  of  the  Constitution  itself.  I  have  earnestly  sought  amid  dis- 
organizing movements  to  maintain  our  standards,  and  the  peace, 
purity,  and  unity  of  the  Church,  in  matters  of  grave  moment  to 
every  lover  of  the  truth  and  order  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  A 
just  Complaint  having  been  regularly  brought  by  me  before  the  Synod 
of  Cincinnati,  and  reported  as  "  in  order"  by  the  Judicial  Committee, 
and  the  Synod  having  voted  to  hear  the  Complaint,  it  was,  without  even 
a  reconsideration  of  the  vote,  turned  out  of  doors,  under  the  pretense 
of  postponement.  I,  therefore,  present  to  the  attention  of  my  brethren 
the  merits  of  the  specific  case  upon  which  I  asked  the  Synod  to  adjudi- 
cate. The  imputation,  gratuitously  and  injuriously  made  by  the  Pre- 
amble to  the  Resolution  of  the  Synod,  whereby  my  Complaint  was  prac- 
tically ejected  from  the  House,  abundantly  justifies  me  in  publishing 
the  Complaint  itself  and  the  Argument  I  had  prepared  in  its  support. 
Neither  of  them  would  the  Synod  even  hear.  Whether  it  touches  the 
case  of  Mr.  McCune,  every  reader  may  judge  for  himself.  My  brethren 
will  decide  whether  I  had  just  cause  of  complaint  against  the  Presbytery 
and  whether  the  Synod  could  honorably,  as  a  Court  of  Christ,  excuse 
itself  for  refusing  the  hearing  I  demanded  as  my  right,  at  its  last 
meeting.  They  will  judge  upon  whom  rests  the  responsibility  of  the 
causes  of  complaint  to  the  General  Assembly. 

It  has  been  truly  said  by  one  well  versed  in  our  ecclesiastical  law, 
"  it  may  be  doubted  whether  a  similar  arbitrary  unconstitutional  pro- 
ceeding can  be  found  in  all  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church."  The  law  of  our  Church,  publicly  cited,  repeated,  and 
urged  in  the  Synod  itself,  declares  that  "  where  there  is  a  rlrjht  to 
appeal  and  complain,  there  is  positive  obligation  on  the  part  of  the 
judicatory  to  receive  and  issue  such  appeals  and  complaints ;"  and  that 
"where   ecclesiastical   rights  of  individuals  or  bodies  are   concerned 


4 

there  is  no  discretion  ;  all  such  rights  are  guarded  by  the  constitution 
by  which  every  church  court  is  bound,"  bound  not  only  to  "  receive" 
and  "  issue,"  but  to  "  seasonably  issue,"  during  the  very  same  meeting 
of  the  judicatory,  to  which  the  complaint  or  appeal  has  been  made,  the 
case  having  been  reported  '*in  order,"  and  the  records  and  parties 
being  present.  Nothing  but  "an  act  of  God,"  unforeseen,  or  one  or 
other  of  the  grounds  of  postponement  specified  in  our  Digest,  none  of 
which  existed  in  this  case,  is  held  to  justify  any  departure  from  this 
constitutional  law.  No  man  may  be  robbed  of  his  constitutional 
rights  by  arbitrary  power.  Even  on  the  supposition  that  the  McCune 
case  had  been  pending  before  the  lower  court,  yet  this  gave  no  right 
for  the  Synod  to  eject  my  Complaint  from  the  house.  The  Synod 
had  prior  jurisdiction.  Our  Digest  tells  us  that  when  the  pending 
of  one  case  is  set  up  to  defeat  another,  "the  case  must  be  the  same; 
There  must  be  the  same  parties,  or  at  least  such  as  represent  the  samp 
interests,  there  must  be  the  same  rights  asserted,  and  the  same  relief 
prayed  for.  The  identity  in  these  particulars  should  be  such  that, 
if  the  pending  case  had  already  been  disposed  of,  it  could  be  pleaded  in 
bar,  a5  a  former  adjudication  of  the  same  matter,  between  the  same 
parties."  And  yet,  in  violation  of  these  clear  principles  of  righteous- 
ness, the  arbitrary  power  of  the  Synod  was  used  in  derogation  of 
my  vested  ecclesiastical  rights,  and  the  Synod  ejected  my  Complaint 
by  an  indefinite  postponement,  upon  the  excuse  of  a  perhaps,  which 
neither  civil  nor  ecclesiastical  law  would  tolerate  for  a  moment.  Was 
nut  this  a  living  and  practical  illustration  of  the  doctrine,  officially  set 
in  circulation  by  order  of  the  Synod  in  1870,  that  "organic  enactments, 
denominational  laws,  are  the  apples  of  discord  and  wedges  of  division 
in  the  Christian  Church,"  and  ought  not  to  be  "enforced?"  The 
end  sought  was  gained,  just  as  the  ends  sought  had  been  gained  in  the 
Presbytery.  Nothing  is  left  but  to  complain  to  the  Assembly.  The 
conduct  of  the  Presbytery  for  six  months,  the  twice  taking  from  me 
njy  right  and  compelling  a  complaint  to  Synod,  then  the  repetition  by 
the  Synod  of  the  very  offense  it  was  bound  to  rebuke,  and  the  com- 
pulsion again  of  a  Complaint  to  the  Assembly,  tells  its  own  story  and 
siiows  where  the  responsibility  rests.  I  might  plead  that  the  Synod's 
action  was  either  a  prejudice  in  favor  of  Mr.  McCune,  or  against  my- 
self, or  both.     I  leave  this  for  others  to  determine. 

A  generation  ago,  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  torn  by  the  very 
principles  and  course  of  action  which  have  agitated  our  ministry  and 
Churches  within  the  bounds  of  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati,  giving  rise  to 
excesses  and  disorganizing  movements  for  years  past,  in  connection, 
among  other  things,  with  temperance  crusades,  women's  preaching,  un- 


licensed  evangelism,  and  anti-denominational  organic  union.  These 
excesses  and  movements,  and  the  practical  destruction  of  a  part  of 
our  Presbyterian  government,  with  tendencies  antagonistic  to  the  whole 
of  it,  I  felt  myself  called  upon,  with  others,  in  conscience  and  loyalty 
to  our  Church,  publicly  to  oppose. 

Therefore,  to  relieve  myself  of  what  I  deem  an  unjust  imputation, 
implied  in  the  resolution  passed  by  the  Synod,  and  to  vindicate  my 
own  honor,  in  the  character  of  my  Complaint  against  the  Presbytery, 
to  that  body,  all  the  more  that  the  Presbytery  is  now  about  to  enter 
upon  Mr.  McCune's  case,  I  publish  my  own  Complaint  and  Argument 
for  the  consideration  of  all  concerned,  as  also  for  the  information  of 
the  Church.  I  append  my  protest  against  the  Synod's  action,  and  my 
Complaint  against  the  Synod  to  the  General  Assembly. 

T.  H.  S. 


^OMPLAINT  TO  THE  ^YNOD. 


The  undersigned  respectfully  complains  to  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati 
against  the  following  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  during  its 
sessions  at  its  stated  fall  meeting,  at  Mt.  Auburn,  September  13  to  15, 
inclusive,  and  at  Cincinuati,  October  3  to  5,  inclusive,  to  wit : 

I.  In  sustaining  the  decision  of  the  Moderator,  whereby  my  Preamble 
and  Resolutions  upon  the  case  of  Mr.  McGwie  were  ruled  as  out  of  order,  be- 
cause they  were  assumed  to  be  unconstitutional.  The  "point  of  order" 
(so  called)  was  raised  by  Dr.  Morris,  as  follows :  "  That  the  Preamble 
and  Resolutions  just  presented  by  Dr.  Skinner  can  not  be  considered 
by  this  body,  on  the  ground  that  such  consideration  would  be  in  vio- 
lation of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  and 
would  be  a  virtual  trial  of  the  said  Mr.  McCune,  without  due  regard 
to  the  forms  provided  for  in  our  constitution."  "The  Moderator  re- 
turned to  the  Chair  and  announced  his  decision  of  the  point  of  order, 
as  follows:  'The  point  of  order  is  well  taken,  and  the  Preamble  and 
Resolutions  are  not  in  order.'  The  decision  was  appealed  from,  and 
the  Moderator  sustained." 

My  reasons  of  complaint  against  this  action  are : 

1.  It  was  a  repudiation  by  Presbytery  of  its  vested  constitutional  right 
(Form  of  Government,  Chapter  X,  Section  8)  "  to  condemn  erroneous 
opinions  which  injure  the  purity  or  peace  of  the  Church,"  apart  from 
judicial  process  against  the  author. 

2.  It  was  a  violation  of  parliamentary  rule,  in  derogation  of  ray  con- 
stitutional right  to  introduce  said  Preamble  and  Resolutions,  and  to 
discuss  the  merits  of  the  same  after  they  were  seconded,  and  I  was  en- 
titled to  the  floor,  no  matter  what  their  fate  might  have  been  on  the 
final  vote,  after  discussion. 

3.  Said  decision  of  the  Moderator,  sanctioned  and  sustained  by 
Presbytery,  was  an  exercise  of  the  most  responsible  prerogative  re- 


served  to  the  General  Assembly,  viz.:  that  of  deciding  upon  questions 
of  constitutional  law,  and  binding  its  interpretation  on  the  court  as  a 
rule  of  action. 

4.  It  was  turning  a  constitutional  question  into  a  parliamentary  rule 
of  order,  so  inventing  a  new  rule,  in  derogation  of  my  constitutional 
and  parliamentary  rights. 

II.  In  accepting,  and  thereby  making  official  documents  of,  the  Special 
Report  and  Collaterals  of  ilw  Committee  of  Investigation  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
McCune,  without  any  action  whatever  to  amend  or  to  rectify  datementSj  judg- 
ments, and  personalities,  therein  contained,  at  variance  with  righteotisness]and 
triiih.     The  Report  accepted,  Record,  p.  217. 

My  reasons  of  complaint  against  this  action  are : 

1.  The  Report  opens  with,  and  its  recommendations  rest  upon,  state- 
ments contrary  to  truth. 

2.  It  steps  out  of  its  way  to  raise  a  new  case,  instead  of  confining 
itself  to  the  terms  of  the  resolution  under  which  the  committee  was 
appointed. 

3.  It  implies  a  censure  upon  the  undersigned,  and  recommends  the 
Presbytery  to  pass  a  judgment  which  also  implies  a  censure. 

4.  Part  of  the  Collaterals  indulge  in  gross  personalities  against  the 
undersigned,  which  would  not  be  tolerated  a  moment  in  debate,  and 
ought  not  to  be  tolerated  in  an  official  document. 

III.  For  adopthig  an  answer  to  the  pi'otest  of  the  undersigned,  Septeamher 
15,  1876,  Mt.  Auburn,  without  rectifying  its  erroneous  statements  and  the 
fake  impression  it  is  calculated  to  make. 

My  reasons  for  complaint  against  this  action  are : 

1.  Said  answer  does  not  accurately  represent  the  facts  of  the  case. 

2.  It  represents  the  undersigned  as  being  out  of  order  and  furnishing 
reasonable  ground  for  the  annoyances  and  unlawful  interruptions  un- 
der which  he  was  forced  to  retire  from  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery. 

3.  No  withdrawal  of  the  protest,  for  alteration,  on  account  of  mis- 
i*epresentations  in  the  answer,  could  make  the  protest  "  more  agree- 
able" to  the  "  views''  of  the  undersigned. 

This  Complaint  is  respectfully  submitted,  with  the  request  that  it 
may  be  prosecuted  immediately,  according  to  the  discipline  of  our 
Church. 

Thomas  H.  Skinner. 

Cincinnati,  October  14,  1876. 


$HE    § 


Mr.  Moderator,  this  Complaint  limits  itself,  specifically,  to  two 
things:  (1.)  To  the  denial  of  my  constitutional  and  parliamentary 
riglits  as  a  Presbyter,  guaranteed  to  me  by  the  standards  of  our 
Church  and  our  accepted  rules  of  parliamentary  order,  (2,)  To  the 
impeachment  of  my  conduct  and  character  as  a  man  and  as  a  minister 
while  in  the  public  defense  of  these  rights,  as  also  in  the  public  defense 
of  our  Presbyterian  faith  and  order.  It  impinges,  in  no  respect,  upon 
the  vierits  of  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  McCune,  now  in  judicial  pro- 
cess before  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati.  It  relates  solely  to  myself 
and  the  Presbytery.  This  Complaint,  Mr.  Moderator,  needs  no  apol- 
ogy. The  utmost  effort  has  been  made,  by  various  parties,  to  try  and 
degrade  the  great  cause  of  Truth  and  Order,  out  of  which  this  Com- 
plaint has  sprung,  to  the  aspect  of  a  mere  personal  quarrel,  "The 
Address  to  all  the  Churches  of  North  America,"  by  the  advocates  of 
anti-denominational  organizations;  the  wide-spread  advocacy  of  the 
principles  involved  herein  by  so-called  Christian  Church  Union  jour- 
nals, to  which  the  names  and  influence  of  many  Presbyterian  minis- 
ters are  given ;  the  existence  and  character  of  a  new  organization  of 
this  kind  in  the  very  bosom  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  with  its 
published  Declaration  and  Basis ;  the  multiplied  utterances  of  the 
press  throughout  the  land,  both  secular  and  religious,  and  the  action 
of  the  Presbytery  itself  instituting  inquiry  into  the  raei-its  of  this 
movement,  are  an  abundant  answer  to  so  gratuitous  a  conception.  I 
need,  therefore,  say  no  more  on  this  point.  There  are  three  separate 
counts  in  the  Complaint  I  bring  before  you:  (1.)  As  to  my  constitu- 
tional and  parliamentary  rights.  (2.)  As  to  the  acceptance  of  the 
Committee's  Report  and  its  Collaterals.  (3.)  As  to  the  adoption  of 
the  answer  to  a  protest.  I  complain,  first,  that  my  rights  have  been 
wrested  from  me;  second,  that  my  conduct  and  character  are  im- 
peached in  accepted  and  official  documents  of  the  Presbytery,  contrary 
•  to  all  precedent.     Such  is  my  Complaint. 


I.  The  first  point  of  the  Complaint  is  against  Presbytery's  action 
"  in  sustaining  fhe  decision  of  the  Moderator,  whereby  my  Preamble 
and  liesolutions  upon  the  case  of  Mr.  McCune  were  ruled  as  out  of  or- 
der, because  they  were  assumed  to  be  unconstitutional"  (1.)  The  first 
reason  in  support  of  this  first  point  is  that  such  action,  assuming  such 
unconstitutionality,  was  "a  repudiation"  by  Presbytery  of  its  veded  eoa- 
itltutloival  right  (Form  of  Government,  Chapter  X,  Section  8)  "  to  con- 
demn erroneous  opinions  which  injure  the  purity  and  peace  of  the 
Church,  apart  from  judicial  process  against  their  author." 

I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  by  the  Synod,  that  the  ground 
on  which  the  Presbytery's  action  rested  was  not  the  mere  inexpediency 
of  the  application  of  non-forensic  or  episcopal  power  to  the  condemna- 
tion of  Mr.  McCune's  errors  and  irregularities,  but  it  was  the  denial 
that  such  episcopal  power,  so  to  do,  did  exist  by  the  constitution.  If  the 
constitutional  power  to  condemn  widely-spread  errors,  apart  from 
judicial  process,  had  been  recognized,  no  ground  would  have  existed 
on  which  to  raise  a  "  point  of  order,"  or  decide  any  one  "  out  of  order" 
who  sought  to  persuade  Presbytery  to  exercise  that  power,  and  save  a 
tedious,  unnecessary  and  vexatious  litigation.  The  only  question  that 
could  have  arisen,  was,  is  it  "  wise,  equitable,  and  for  the  edification 
of  the  Church,"  to  exercise  this  power,  and  to  this  point  my  Preamble, 
Resolution,  and  x\rgument  were  directed;  i.  e.,  to  a  discussion  of  the 
merits  of  the  case,  in  view  of  the  Committee's  ofiicial  report,  furnishing 
the  "facts"  in  the  case  by  order  of  the  Presbytery,  after  five  months' 
investigation.  If  deemed  contrary  to  the  constitution,  irregular,  unwise, 
inequitable,  and  not  for  edification,  after  hearing  my  argument,  to 
exercise  this  power,  it  was  competent  to  vote  down  my  motion,  or  lay  it 
on  the  table ;  but  I  assert  it  was  an  outrage  upon  all  my  rights  to  shut 
my  moutli,  a  second  time,  upon  a  debatable  motion,  duly  seconded  and 
read,  absolutely  in  order,  and  on  which  I  had  already  proceeded  to 
speak.  At  the  Glendale  Presbytery,  April  13,  1875,  the  plea  of 
official  ignorance  was  made.  The  information  I  came  forward  to  offer 
was  declined.  It  was  said  I  could  not  speak  on  the  merits  of  my 
Preamble  until  the  "/acfe"  were  brought  in  by  a  Committee.  The 
Committee  of  Investigation,  consuming  the  summer,  reported  tlie 
"facts"  September  13,  1875,  indorsing  Mr.  McCune's  course  at 
Lin  wood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  and  although  themselves  disapproving  sonw 
of  his  views,  yet  reccommending  no  disapproval  by  the  Presbytery,  but 
suggesting  process  against  myself  for  slander.  The  report  was  not 
adopted,  but  accepted.  It  was  a  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  case  by 
Mr.  McCune  and  the  Committee.  I  then  took  the  official  documents, 
and  sought  by  a  Preamble  and  Resolution,  to  have  Presbytery  disap- 


10 

prove  both  the  views  and  course  of  Mr.  McCune,  and  forbid  their 
continuance.  My  mouth  was  a  second  time  stopped,  oh  the  merits  of 
the  case,  although  having  the  floor,  under  a  debateable  motion  and  per- 
fectly in  order.  What  was  accorded  to  a  Committee  and  to  Mr.  McCune 
apart  from  judicial  process,  was  denied  to  me.  To  support  what  policy, 
and  in  whose  interest  all  this  was  done,  I  lea-ve  others  to  judge.  The 
refusal  to  "consider"  my  Preamble  and  Resolutions  was  an  oppression. 
To  accomplish  this,  it  was  necessary  to  find  some  ground  on  which  to 
raise  a  "point  of  order."  I  announce  to  the  Synod  that  the  very  con- 
stitution itself  was  declared  unconstitutional,  and  on  that  ground  I  was  ■ 
pronounced  out  of  order,  and  my  rights  to  discuss  tho  merits  of  the 
case,  after  Mr.  McCune  had  discussed  them  several  hours  before  Pres- 
bytery, and  the  Committee's  report  had  discussed  them,  was  wrested 
from  me.  It  is  of  this  injustice  I  complain,  all  the  more  that  the  Com- 
mittee itself  had  intimated  to  the  Presbytery  not  to  have  "a  judicial 
trial,"  and  had  not  even  recommended  a  disapproval  of  Mr.  McCune's 
"views,"  and  had  actually  indorsed  his  "course"  at  Linwood  and  Mt. 
Lookout.  It  alters  not  the  injustice  of  the  proceeding,  that,  after 
much  effort  to  throw  this  grave  matter  out  of  court,  and  suggest  action 
against  myself  for  the  public  defense  of  my  rights  and  the  honor  of  my 
Church,  it  was  finally  considered  expedient  to  institute  process  against 
Mr.  McCune.  The  ground  on  which  I  was  ruled  "  out  of  order"  was 
not  the  inexpediency  of  exercising  the  non-judicial  power  of  the  Pres- 
bytery in  condemnation  of  the  errors  before  us,  but  the  denial  of  that 
power  altogether,  and  on  that  ground  wresting  from  me  my  right  of 
discussion.  The  reactionary  half-recognition  of  the  episcopal  power 
of  the  Presbytery  came  later,  only  in  order  to  furnish  a  basis  for  the 
opinion  of  its  non-applicability  to  the  case  in  hand,  and  a  justification 
of  judicial  process,  but  not  to  allow  me  any  right  of  discussion  on  the 
merits  of  my  Preamble  and  Resolutions.  My  Complaint,  I  think,  is  un- 
derstood. I  shall  show  that  the  Presbytery  has  the  very  power  it  repu- 
diated, that  I  was  in  order,  and  that  the  action  of  the  Presbytery 
was  an  appression,  twice  repeated. 

Has  the  Presbytery  the  constitutional  power  to  condemn  erroneous 
opinions  and  irregularities  of  practice,  which  disturb  the  tranquility 
of  the  Church,  apart  from  tedious  and  extreme  forensic  process  ?  My 
conviction  is  clear  that  it  not  only  has  this  right,  but  it  is  in  duty  bound 
to  exercise  it  for  the  edification  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  1  think  I 
shall  be  able  to  justify  this  conviction,  deep-seated  and  ineradicable  as  it 
is,  by  the  best  of  evidence  and  sound  argument.  I  shall  adduce  in 
support  of  my  first  reason  the  organic  law  of  the  Church  itself,  estab- 
lished precedents,  approved,  selected,  and  recorded  since  the  reunion, 


11 

in  our  Digest,  for  our  guide,  and  by  the  recognized  practice  of  nil  courts 
in  their  interpretation  of  constitutional  law. 

The  whole  power  of  jurisdiction  and  order,  vested  by  Christ  in  the 
Church  of  God  on  earth,  and  iu  every  branch  and  denomination  of 
it  wherever  found,  is  of  divine  right  and  origin,  and  is  limited  alone 
by  the  sovereign  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  for  the 
edification  of  His  spiritual  body  and  not  for  destruction.  Supervisory 
and  authoritative,  it  is  broad  as  the  inspection  and  control  of  the  whole 
Church  and  adequate  to  all  her  wants  and  necessities.  Its  exercise  is 
directed  to  two  things,  the  preservation  of  the  heavenly  doctrine  in 
its  purity,  and  the  guardianship  of  the  Christian  conduct ;  in  other 
words,  to  faith  and  morals.  Take  these  two  things  away,  truth  and 
duty,  and  neither  Form  of  Government  nor  Code  of  Discipline  has 
any  value.  The  written  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  with 
its  system  of  doctrine  and  polity,  we  declare  to  be  "agreeable  to  the 
Word  of  Grod,"  and  vow  to  maintain  and  enforce  it  as  the  law  of  the 
Church,  just  because  we  so  believe.  Ministerial  and  declarative  alone, 
and  unfettered  by  human  commandments,  and  neither  legislating  nor 
binding  by  virtue  of  human  authority,  nor  against  the  revealed  will 
of  God,  it  is  the  vice-regal  function  of  the  Church,  derived  from  the 
crown  of  Him  on  whose  shoulders  is  the  government,  who  holds  the 
key  of  David,  and  who  has  said,  "I  give  to  you  the  keys  of  the  king- 
dom. Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven, 
and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  It 
is  an  awful  and  solemn  trust,  and  not  a  "popish  usurpation,"  to  be 
executed  in  view  of  our  accountability  to  Christ  for  the  manner  in 
which  we  defend  the  heavenly  doctrine  and  the  order  of  the  heavenly 
house. 

The  most  general,  or  the  generic,  name  of  this  power  is  ^'Episco- 
pal." It  is  the  exercise  of  that  watch  and  control  which  are  given  to 
those  whom  Christ  has  appointed  and  the  Holy  Ghost  has  chosen  to  be 
ordained  "overseers"  (Episcopoi.  Acts  xx.  28;  1  Tim.  iii.  1,  2)  and 
"  shepherds  "  in  the  Church.  It  is  sometimes  called  "  Paternal "  power, 
in  allusion  to  1  Tim.  iii.  4,  5.  Modified  as  to  the  method  of  its  exer- 
cise, in  certain  extreme  cases,  by  judicial  forms  and  rules  of  procedure, 
it  is  called  "  Judicial "  or  "  Forensic."  It  is  the  broadest,  most  compre- 
hensive, and  far-reaching  function  of  government  and  administration 
that  exists';  the  most  indispensable  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Church 
itself.  It  is  the  character  of  all  her  action.  Deny  to  the  Church  of 
Christ  episcopal  power,  and  she  is  stripped  at  once  of  the  very  means 
of  her  self-preservation  ;  her  oversight  and  control  are  alike  wrecked, 
and  not  even  a  shadow  is  left  on  which  to  shape  her  judicial.     But  this 


'  12 

is  so  plain  I  need  not  argue  it.  Enough  to  say  that  it  is  by  virtue  of 
this  episcopal  power  alone,  apart  from  judicial  forms,  the  power  of 
supervision  or  inspection,  declarative  and  authoritative,  and  put  by 
Christ  in  ordination  and  the  laying  on  of  hands  upon  the  shoulders  of 
every  presbyter-bishop,  whether  teaching  or  ruling,  and  vested  in  every 
ministerial  court,  the  Church  of  Christ  executes  nearly  the  whole  of 
her  divine  commission.  By  this  she  preaches  the  gospel,  administers 
sacraments,  admits  members  and  ministers  into  the  Church  and  dis- 
misses them,  examines,  licenses,  puts,  or  refuses  to  put,  calls  into  the 
hands  of  her  ministers,  elects,  installs,  ordains,  translates,  and  removes 
both  ministers,  elders,  and  deacons.  By  this  she  forms  and  dissolves 
pastoral  relations,  organizes,  visits,  unites  or  divides,  and  commands 
Churches,  redresses  evils,  and  does  whatever  pertains  to  their  welfare. 
By  this  she  requires  candidates  to  pursue  certain  studies  and  report 
their  progress  to  her  courts,  aud  calls  upon  her  ministers  to  give  ac- 
count of  their  work  in  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord.  By  this  she  erects 
aud  convenes  her  courts,  frames  rules,  and  subjects  to  review  and  con- 
trol their  records  and  proceedings.  She  warns  against  transgression, 
by  this  same  power,  admonishes,  reproves,  rebukes,  exhorts,  entreats, 
enjoins,  defends  the  faith,  directs  the  conduct,  decides  cases  of  con- 
science, suppresses  schismatical  controversies,  arrests  lawless  practices 
against  her  polity,  resolves  questions  of  doctrine  and  discipline  reason- 
ably proposed,  condemns  erroneous  opinions,  and  bears  public  testi- 
mony against  whatever  she  regards  as  injurious  to  the  faith  and  order 
of  God's  house,  and  to  good  manners,  charity,  truth,  and  holiness. 
And  all  this  simply  by  preamble  and  resolution,  motion  and  overture, 
act,  testimony,  and  deliverance,  memorial,  recommendation,  and  , 
injunction  ; — not  by  process  and  verdict.  Valid  documentary  evidence 
and  present  undeniable  facts,  in  her  own  court,  have  the  sanctity  and 
force  of  a  true  witness.  Moderator,  who  is  it  that  denies  the  episcopal 
power  of  the  Church  of  Christ  ?  or  the  episcopal  power  of  every  court 
in  it?  As  well  deny  that  the  sun  shines  in  the  heavens!  Why  sir, 
what  kind  of  power  was  it  the  Committee  of  the  Presbytery  exercised, 
in  approving  the  "course"  of  Mr.  McCune,  and  disapproving  his 
"views"  apart  from  judicial  process,  and  under  a  Preamble  and 
Resolution  of  Investigation?  What  kind  of  power  is  it  that  the  editor 
of  the  Herald  and  Fre&hyter  exercised?  And  is  any  one  so  forgetful  of  all 
consistency  as  to  aver  that  the  Presbytery  itself  has  less  power  than  a 
mere  Committee,  the  creature  of  its  own  appointment,  or  than  the  indi- 
vidual editor  of  a  religious  newspaper,  both  using,  in  full,  the  name  of 
the  author,  and  affirming  a  judgment  upon  the  merits  of  the  case?  How 
preposterous  to  think  that  in  the  grave  matters  that  so  often  engage  her 


13 

attention  in  a  wicked  world,  where  the  adversary  ever  works  to  corrupt 
her  faith  and  destroy  her  order,  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  tied,  by 
every  considerable  transgression,  to  an  extreme  forensic  process,  that 
may  consume  a  year  for  its  issue,  and  in  the  end  the  remedy  prove 
worse  than  the  disease  !  What  a  harvest  of  practice  for  the  contentious 
and  obstinate,  unwilling  to  be  reclaimed  by  milder  means!  What  a 
premium  on  discord  !  What  a  plight  for  the  Church  of  Christ  in  the 
hands  of  him  who,  abhorring  ''judiciaV  power  and  crying  for  "  peace 
and  safety''  in  the  midst  of  fast  coming  calamities,  denies  the  "  Epkco- 
pal"  power  too!  Then,  what  is  left  but  fire  and  stubble?  Moderator, 
the  compass  of  1834  will  not  do  for  either  you  or  me  to  steer  by  in  pres- 
ent or  coming  storms  !  It  is  a  question  if  the  anchor  of  Reunion  will 
hold  us,  for  the  gale  is  strong ! 

But  the  Church  is  not  so  bound.  The  recognition  of  this  episcopal 
power  is  inscribed  in  the  constitution,  in  express  terms.  "  It  belong- 
eth,"  says  our  admirable  Confession,  Chapter  XXXI,  Section  2,  "to 
Synods  and  Councils,  ministerially  to  determine  controversies  of  faith 
and  cases  of  conscience,  to  set  down  rules  and  directions  for  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  and  government  of  His  Church,  which  decrees  and  deter- 
minations, if  consistent  with  the  Word  of  God,  are  to  be  received  with 
reverence  and  submission,  not  only  for  the  agreement  with  the  Word, 
but  also  for  the  power  whereby  they  are  made,  as  being  an  ordinance 
of  God,  appointed  thereunto  in  his  Word."  The  same  episcopal  power 
is  expressed  again  in  our  Form  of  Government,  Chapter  X,  Section  8, 
which  recognizes  the  "power"  vested  by  Christ  in  the  Presbytery,  not 
merely  to  "  issue  appeals,  from  church  sessions  and  references  brought 
before  them,"  nor  merely  to  "judge  ministers"  by  forensic  process,  but 
also,  and  by  a  discriminating  clause,  "to  resolve  questions  of  doctrine  or 
discipline,  seriously  and  reasonably  proposed,  to  condemn  erroneous 
opinions  which  injure  the  purity  or  peace  of  the  Church,  *  *  and 
to  order  whatever  pertains  to  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  churches  un- 
der her  care.''  x\.gain,  with  unmistakable  emphasis  does  our  Book 
of  Discipline,  Chapter  I,  Section  5,  revolt  against  the  idea  that  the 
Church  is  tied  to  extreme  forensic  process  in  the  exercise  of  her  power, 
when  it  declares  that,  "the  exercise  of  discipline  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  edify  the  Church,  requires  not  only  much  of  the  spirit  of  piety,  but  also 
much  prudence  and  discretion.  It  becomes  the  rulers  of  the  Church, 
therefore,  to  take  into  view  all  the  circumstances  which  may  give  a 
different  character  to  conduct,  and  render  it  more  or  less  offensive ; 
and  which  may,  of  course,  require  a  very  different  mode  of  proceeding  in 
similar  crises,  at  dfferent  times,  for  the  att-ainment  of  the  same  end." 
What  could  be  more  explicit?     Again,  the  same  power,  apart  from 


14 

judicial  process,  is  recognized  as  belonging  to  our  Greneral  Assembly. 
Form  of  Government,  Chapter  XII,  Section  5 :  "To  the  General  Assem- 
bly also  belongs  the  power  of  deciding  in  all  controversies  respecting  doc- 
trine and  discipline ;  of  reproving,  warning,  or  hearing  testimony  against 
error  in  doctrine,  or  immorality  in  practice,  in  any  Church,  Presbytery 
or  Synod;  of  suppressing  schismatical  contentions  and  disputations," 
etc.,  etc.  Thus  is  this  episcopal  power  common  to  all  our  courts, 
without  exception,  for  the  Presbytery  is  only  a  larger  session,  and  the 
Synod  a  larger  Presbytery,  while  the  Assembly  is  the  crown  of  all. 
Will  any  one  say  that  before  error  in  doctrine  and  practice,  in  any 
member  of  a  Presbytery,  can  be  condemned,  or  the  Presbytery  arrest 
lawless  movements  and  condemn  erroneous  views  of  its  members,  or 
bear  testimony  against  error  rife  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  forensic 
process  against  their  author  must  be  commenced  and  concluded?  It  is 
not  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  best  interpretation 
of  any  organic  instrument  or  statute  is  the  practice  of  its  framers  in  the 
generation  contemporaneous  with  and  succeeding  its  adoption,  and  the 
best  evidence  of  that  practice  is  the  action  of  the  administering  courts 
themselves,  and  the  decrees  and  determinations  of  the  supreme  court 
of  the  Church,  which  have  all  the  force  of  constitutional  law.  "  Coa- 
temporanea  expositio  est  optima  et  fortissima  in  lege" — contemporaneous 
exposition  is  the  best  and  strongest  interpretation  in  law ;  this  is  a 
maxim  of  acknowledged  validity,  universal  and  conclusive.  The  con- 
struction of  the  constitution  by  the  courts  contemporaneous  with  its 
enactment  is  the  surest  construction,  and  next  to  this,  the  practice  of 
the  courts  succeeding.  Such  judicial  interpretation  obtains  the  force 
of  constitutional  law  itself. 

I  appeal,  therefore,  to  five  celebrated  cases  in  our  Digest  which 
testify  to  the  practice  of  the  Church  from  its  very  beginning  in  this 
land,  following  the  practice  of  its  parent  source  and  which  remains 
alike  for  all  future  time,  notwithstanding  the  momentary  obscurations 
of  1822  and  1834,  which  only  prepared  the  way  for  an  intenser  bright- 
ness. And  all  the  more  I  do  this,  again,  at  this  time,  inasmuch  as  it 
has  been  wildly  asserted  in  the  lower  court,  that  the  exceptional 
decisions  of  1822  and  1834  are  to  day  accepted  law  by  "ninety-nine 
hundredths  of  the  Reunited  Church.''  I  need  only  advert  to  them 
briefly;  they  are  the  cases  of  Harker,  Davis,  Balch,  Craighead  and 
Barnes.  All  these  began  with  the  direct  exercise  of  episcopal  power, 
apart  from  judicial  process;  some  of  them  began,  continued,  and  were 
concluded  by  that  power  alone;  while  others,  which  beginning  with  that 
power  and  failing  by  this  milder  means  to  secure  the  peace  and  purity 
of  the  Church,  were  concluded  by  forensic  adjudication. 


15 

1.  RarJcer. — Moore's  Digest,  p.  218;  Baird's  Digest,  p.  604.  In 
conformity  with  the  early  practice  of  the  Church,  a  non-judicial  refer- 
ence was  made  to  the  Synod  by  Presbytery  respecting  Mr.  Marker, 
who  had  "imbibed  and  vented  certain  erroneous  doctrines."  "In  1761, 
Mr,  Harker  printed  and  published  his  views,  and  Synod  appointed  a 
committee  to  examine  the  book,  who  reported  next  year.  The  Synod 
proceeded  to  consider  Mr.  Barker's  principles,  collected  from  his  booh  by 
the  committee,  which  are  in  substance  as  follows."  After  examination, 
the  Synod  passed  the  following  judgment,  without  any  judicial  process 
whatever.  "The  Synod  judge  that  these  principles  are  of  a  hurtful 
and  dangerous  tendency,  giving  a  false  view  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
etc.,  etc.,  and  that  they  are  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God  and  our 
approved  standards  of  doctrine."  On  the  further  consideration  of  the 
case,  the  Synod  made  the  following  judgment,  to  wit:  "That  Mr. 
Harker  has  for  several  years  past  been  dealt  with  in  the  tenderest 
manner,  etc.,  etc.,  but  that  instead  of  succeeding  in  these  attempts, 
he  appeared  to  be  rather  confirmed  and  resolute  in  propagating  his 
opinions  among  the  people,  etc.,  etc.  On  the  whole,  though  the 
exclusion  of  a  member  be  grievous,  yet  we  judge  that  the  said  Mr. 
Samuel  Harker  can  not  be  consistently  a  member  of  this  body,  and 
accordingly  declare  him  disqualified  for  preaching  and  exercising  his 
ministry,"  etc.  Such  was  the  case.  The  fathers  of  the  Church  exer- 
cised their  episcopal  power  in  "  condemning  erroneous  opinions,"  and 
finally  excluded  a  contumacious  member,  apart  from  judicial  process. 

2.  Balch.— Moore's  Digest,  p.  220 ;  Baird,  p.  614.  Mr.  Balch,  in 
1797,  having  imbibed  Hopkinsian  doctrines,  propagated  them,  causing 
a  schism  in  the  Church,  and  the  erection  of  a  new  independent  organi- 
zation. The  "creed"  of  Mr.  Balch,  gathered  by  a  commission,  was 
referred-  to  the  General  Assembly,  without  any  judicial  process  against 
its  author,  asking  that  the  author  be  required  to  "acknowledge  before 
the  Assembly  that  he  was  wrong  in  the  publication  of  his  creed, 
renounce  the  errors  pointed  out,  engage  to  teach  nothing  hereafter  of 
a  similiar  nature,  and  that  the  Moderator  admonish  him,"  etc.  Mr. 
Balch  acknowledged  his  errors:  "I  do  fully  acknowledge,"  etc.,  did 
"  cheerfully  renounce  them,"  did  "solemnly  and  sincerely  engage,"  etc.. 
did  "cheerfully  submit  himself  to  admonition,"  and  was  declared  "in 
good  standing  in  the  Church."  It  was  an  exercise  of  episcopal  power 
by  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  under  the  organic  law  of  the  Church. 

3.  Z>aOTS.— Moore's  Digest,  p.  222;    Baird,  p.  634.     The  Second 
Presbytery  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  exercise  of  its  episcopal  power, . 
"represented"  to  the  Synod  that  Mr.  Davis,  belonging  to  the  First 
Presbytery,  was  permitted  to  "  pass  without  censure,  though  known  to 


16 

teach  erroneous  doctrines  on  some  fundamental  points."  Synod  required 
the  Presbytery  to  "attend  to  this  matter."  After  various  efforts, 
charges  were  tabled  by  the  Second  Presbytery,  and  abandoned,  Mr. 
Davis  being  excused  from  censure,  on  the  ground  of  "  liberty  of  opinion." 
Synod  then  commenced  a  "judicial  investigation,"  and,  finally,  referred 
the  matter  to  the  Assembly.  The  Synod's  action  was  declared  irregular 
in  proceeding  to  such  judicial  investigation,  when  there  was  "no  refer- 
ence and  no  appeal,"  and  the  next  Assembly  refused  to  "  reconsider." 
This  action  was  just,  because  the  Synod  was  not  a  court  of  original 
jurisdiction  over  a  minister.  It,  however,  considered  an  "  overture''  from 
the  Synod  of  the  Carolina?,  "requesting  their  attention  to  a  late 
publication  of  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Davis,  denominated  the  Gospel  Plan." 
The  finding  upon  the  overture  was,  that  the  doctrines  of  Mr.  Davis  are 
"  contrary  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Word  of  God,"  "of  very 
dangerous  tendency,"  and  the  "Assembly  do  judge,  and  do  hereby 
declare,  that  the  preaching  or  publishing  them  ought  to  subject  the 
person  or  persons  so  doing,  to  be  dealt  with  by  their  respective  Presby- 
teries according  to  the  discipline  of  the  Church  relativ^e  to  the  propa- 
gation of  errors."  Judicial  process  was  commenced  in  a  new  Presbytery, 
to  which  Mr.  Davis  was  attached,  his  former  Presbytery  having 
been  dissolved.  Mr.  Davis  declrned  jurisdiction  and  was  deposed  from 
the  ministry.  The  fact  is  patent  that  by  episcopal  power  the  errors  and 
course  of  Mr.  Davis  were  condemned,  upon  overture  alone,  apart  from 
the  conduct  of  a  regular  judicial  trial. 

4.  Crai^?ieaci— Moore's  Digest,  p.  223;  Baird,  p.  638.  Mr.  Craig- 
head having  preached  a  Pelagianizing  sermon  before  Synod,  in  1806, 
"  the  things  he  uttered  before  the  Synod  were  immediately  submitted 
to  that  court  by  the  Committee  of  Bills  and  Overtures."  (Princeton 
Review,  October,  1847,  p.  196.)  He  was  admonished  on  the  spot, 
formally  by  the  Synod,  in  the  exercise  of  its  episcopal  power,  through 
the  Moderator,  to  abstain  from  the  propagation  of  his  views.  He  "set 
at  naught  the  admonition"  of  the  Synod,  determined  to  keep  oit  in  his 
way,  and  published  the  sermon.  Judicial  process  was  afterward 
resorted  to.  In  the  course  of  it,  the  Assembly  said,  in  1824,  "  The 
Synod  might  have  proceeded  instantly  to  condemn  the  errors  of  Mr. 
Craighead's  book,  as  the  Assembly  did  the  "  Gospel  Plan"  of  W.  C. 
Davis,"  that  is,  even  without  judicial  process.  (Baird,  642.)  It  recog- 
nized the  right  to  exercise  episcopal  power,  not  only  in  the  condemna- 
tion of  error,  but  for  a  "  lofty  and  independent  spirit,  that  would  not  be 
controlled  by  authority,"  from  "  a  bold  and  confident  controvertist, 
who  sets  his  opponents  at  defiance." 

5.  Barnes.— Moore's  Digest,  p.  226;   Baird,  p.  650.     In  1829,  Mr. 


17 

Barnes  preached  the  "  Way  of  Salvation,"  the  sermon  causing  public 
discussion.  Next  year  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  allowed  a  call 
from  the  First  Church  of  Philadelphia  to  be  placed  in  his  hands.  A 
minority  protested  and  complained  that  the  proper  consideration 
of  his  views  was  suppressed,  and  the  right  of  the  Presbytery  to 
pronounce  upon  those  views,  apart  from  judicial  process,  denied. 
Synod  sustained  the  complaint  of  the  minority,  and  enjoined  Pres- 
bytery "  to  hear  and  decide  on  their  objections  to  the  orthodoxy  of 
the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to  take  such  order  on  the  whole  sub- 
ject as  is  required  by  a  regard  to  the  purity  of  the  Church  and  its  ac- 
knowledged doctrines  and  order."  Obedient  to  this  injunction.  Pres- 
bytery, apart  from  judicial  process,  "entered  into  an  examination  of 
Mr.  Barnes'  sermon^  and  decided  as  follows:  Presbytery,  etc.,  "are  of 
the  opinion  that  it  contains  speculations  of  dangerous  tendency,"  etc. 
(reciting  the  points),  and,  "on  the  whole,  express  their  deep  regret 
that  Mr.  Barnes  should  have  preached  and  published  a  discourse  so 
highly  objectionable,"  etc.,  "and  earnestly  recommend  to  Mr.  Barnes 
to  reconsider  and  renounce  the  erroneous  matter,"  etc.,  and  appointed 
a  committee  to  wait  upon  Mr.  Barnes,  and  report  the  result  of  their 
interview  at  the  next  meeting.  Mr.  Barnes  refused  to  hear  the  com- 
mittee, resisted  the  exercise  of  the  episcopal  power  of  the  Presbytery, 
pronouncing  "  the  whole  proceeding  unconstitutional  "  This  was  fall- 
ing back,  not  on  the  early  practice  of  the  Church,  but  upon  a  new  in- 
terpretation of  the  constitution  given  in  1822.  The  whole  matter  was  now 
referred  directly  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
with  the  following  question,  viz. :  "  Whether,  by  the  constitution,  it  is 
competent  to  any  Presbytery  to  take  up  and  examine  any  printed  pub- 
lication, and  to  pronounce  it  to  be  erroneous  or  dangerous,  if  they  so 
find  it,  witlmut  in  the  first  place  commencing  a  formal  prosecution  of  the 
author,  even  supposing  it  to  be  known  and  admitted  that  the  author  is 
a  member  of  its  own  body ;  or  whether  a  Presbytery,  in  every  such 
case,  must,  when  disposed  to  act  on  the  same,  forthwith  commence  a 
forensic  prosecution  of  the  author  of  the  publication  which  is  believed  to 
contain  erroneous  and  dangerous  opinions  or  doctrines  ? "  Baird,  pp. 
654,  655.  It  is  the  question  of  episcopal  power,  as  to  its  extent,  raised 
in  1831,  notwithstanding  the  previous  and  uniform  practice  of  the 
Church,  save  once,  in  1822,  which  was  counteracted  by  the  action  of 
1824. 


The  following  correspondence  with  one  well  qualified  to  judge  in  the 
matter  presented,  I  here  insert : 


18 

Cincinnati,  October  15,  1876. 

Bro.  Baikd  :  Will  you  be  so  kind  as  to  give  ine  your  opinion  in  re- 
spect to  the  five  cases — Balch,  Davis,  Harker,  Craighead  and  Barnes — 
named  in  the  Digest,  and  state  whether  they  are  cases  in  which  the 
episcopal  power  of  the  Presbytery,  in  so  far  as  it  may  b^  distinguished 
from  judicial  or  forensic  process,  was  exercised. 

Yours  fraternally,  etc., 


Cincinnati,  October  16,  1876. 

Dear  Brother:  By  "judicial  or  forensic  process"  I  understand 
you  to  mean,  proceedings  implying  the  presence  of  a  prosecutor  and 
defendant  and  forms,  the  essential  features  of  which  are  stated  in  our 
book,  in  the  chapter  on  Actual  Process. 

Episcopal  jurisdiction,  as  contrasted  with  this,  must  mean  that  au- 
thority by  wliich,  without  an  intervening  prosecutor,  or  the  forms  of 
actual  process,  Church  courts  act  immediately  and  of  their  own  knowl- 
edge for  the  correction  of  disorders,  the  reclaiming  of  wanderers,  and 
the  protection  of  the  Church  and  its  doctrines. 

Of  proceedings  of  this  kind,  respecting  which  you  inquire,  the  rec- 
ords of  the  Church  exhibit  a  number  of  memorable  examples.  Con- 
spicuous among  them  are  the  cases  of  Harker,  Balch,  Davis,  Craighead 
and  Barnes.  In  each  of  these  cases  the  episcopal  authority  was  em- 
ployed in  examining  and  censuring  the  published  opinions  of  the  par- 
ties. In  the  Harker  case,  the  Synod,  without  any  of  the  forms  of  ac- 
tual process,  having  first  censured  Marker's  book,  eventually  excluded 
him  from  the  ministry  for  contumacy  and  persistency  in  error.  In  the 
other  cases,  the  episcopal  function  was  exercised  in  censure  of  the  pub- 
lications, and  its  action  was  followed,  more  or  less  directly,  by  meas- 
ures of  forensic  or  judicial  process. 

Two  other  signal  examples  of  episcopal  jurisdiction  you  will  find  in 
the  New  Light  and  Cumberland  Schisms.  In  both  instances  the  Sy- 
nod of  Kentucky  asserted  direct  episcopal  authority  over  unsound  min- 
isters, citing  them  to  its  bar,  examining  them  as  to  their  opinions  and 
conduct,  and  suspending  them  from  their  ministry.  And  in  both  cases 
the  General  Assembly,  after  mature  inquiry  into  the  whole  proceed- 
ings, fully  approved  them. 

I  could  mention  other  instances,  but  these  may  serve  you  as  exam- 
ples of  the  whole.  In  fact,  it  is,  I  think,  beyond  question  that  in  all 
periods  of  the  history  of  our  Church,  from  the  beginning  until  a  com- 
paratively recent  date,  the  episcopal  function  was  in  constant  exercise, 
and  its  righteousness  unquestioned  by  any. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

Samuel  J.  Baird. 

The  fortunes  of  this  new  movement,  that  sought  to  confirm  a  novel 
and  unwarranted  interpretation  of  our  organic  law,  I  need  not  recount. 


19 

They  are  spread  at  length  hi  Baird's  Digest,  pp.  650  to  733,  to  which 
Moore's  Digest,  p.  226,  refers,  traversing  a  painful  conflict  of  seven 
years.  It  was  a  time  of  trouble.  Must  the  author  of  every  erroneous 
and  dangerous  sentiment  be  put  on  trial  before  the  errors  of  his  publi- 
cations, whether  by  book,  or  pamphlet,  or  newspaper,  and  his  irregu- 
larities, be  condemned  ?  To  what,  in  troublous  times,  would  the  Church 
be  reduced,  save  a  police  court  or  an  arena  of  interminable  strife? 

The  answer  of  the  Assembly  of  1834  to  the  above  question,  an  an- 
swer which  led  directly  to  the  disruption  of  the  Church,  because  it  de- 
nied to  the  Church  her  right  to  condemn  erroneous  opinions  apart  from 
the  arraignment  of  the  author,  was  in  these  words  :  "That  in  the  opin- 
ion of  this  Assembly,  to  take  up,  and  try,  and  condemn,  any  printed 
publications  as  heretical  and  dangerous,  is  equivalent  to  condemning  the 
author  as  heretical ;  that  to  condemn  heresy  in  the  abstract  can  not  be 
understood  as  the  purpose  of  such  trial ;  that  the  results  of  such  trial 
are  to  bear  upon,  and  seriously  to  affect,  the  standing  of  the  author ; 
and  the  fair  and  unquestionable  mode  of  procedure  is,  if  the  author 
be  alive  and  known  to  be  of  our  communion,  to  institute  process  against 
him,  and  give  him  a  fair  and  constitutional  trial."  Baird,  p.  669  (8). 
The  peculiar  introduction  of  the  word  "try,"  in  its  technical  meaning, 
and  in  an  illegitimate  application  to  the  phrase,  "printed  publications," 
as  though  any  court  could  ever  dream  of  instituting  forensic  process 
against  a  book,  an  opinion,  or  a  thing,  is  evidently  inappropriate.  The 
protest  to  this  answer  was  this :  "  We  protest,  because  in  our  judgment 
this  decision  not  only  establishes  a  principle  erroneous  in  itself,  but 
does  in  fact  the  very  thing  which  it  imputes  to  the  memorialists ;  it 
casts  censure  on  a  'former  Greneral  Assembly  for  examining  and  con- 
demning a  heretical  book  before  the  author  was  tried  and  condemned 
by  his  Presbytery.  We  here  refer  to  the  case  of  W.  0.  Davis." 
Baird,  671. 

I  gladly  and  thankfully  pass  over  the  history.  Would  there  were 
nothing  here  to  recall  the  past!  In  1834  the  exercise  of  the  episco- 
pal power,  in  this  respect,  was  denied.  In  1835,  and  in  1837,  it  was 
triumphantly  reaffirmed  by  the  Presbyteries  in  Greneral  Assembly.  I 
quote  the  action  of  the  Assembly  of  1835:  ''Resolved  tliat,  in  the 
judgment  of  this  General  Assembly,  it  is  the  right,  and  may  be  the 
duty,  of  a?i?/ judicatory  of  our  Church  to  take  up,  and,  if  it  sec  cause, 
to  bear  testimony  against  any  printed  publication  which  may  be  circu- 
lating in  its  bounds,  and  which  in  the  judgment  of  that  judicatory  may 
be  adapted  to  inculcate  injurious  opinions,  and  this  whether  the  author 
be  living  or  dead,  whether  he  be  in  the  communion  of  this  Church  or 
not,  whether  he  be  a  metnher  of  the  judicatory  o  ).'ss;l  ng  the  opinion,  or  of 


20 

some  other.  *  *  *  Xo  deny  to  our  judicatories,  as  guardians  of  the 
churches,  this  right,  would  be  to  deny  to  them  one  of  the  most  precious 
and  'powerful  means  of  hearing  testimony  against  dangerous  sentiments, 
and  guarding  the  children  of  the  Church  against  "that  instruction 
which  causeth  to  err."  No  counter  decision  to  this  has  ever  been 
made.  The  action  of  the  Assembly  of  1836,  of  which  my  own  fiither 
was  the  author,  and  which  I  well  understand,  did  not  antagonize  with 
the  definitive  action  of  1835,  which  is  a  precedent  that  can  not  be  set 
aside  in  the  Reunited  Church.  Just  what  the  Assembly  of  1836  did, 
was  simply  to  maintain  that,  to  episcopally  condemn  the -errors  of  a 
publication,  which  errors  the  Assembly  had  already  decided  not  to  be 
errors,  after  the  formal  judicial  trial  of  their  author  for  the  same,  was 
improper,  and  in  contravention  of  the  rights  of  the  author,  as  also  a 
reversal  of  its  own  decision  upon  the  merits  of  the  errors  themselves. 
Baird's  Digest,  p.  694  (3,  4,  5).  Whatever  difference  of  opinion 
might  have  existed  as  to  the  errors  themselves,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  position  taken  was  correct,  and  in  this  view  I  have  the  sanc- 
tion of  my  father  himself. 

What  then,  Moderator,  is  the  result  we  have  reached?  It  is  no  less 
than  this:  (1.)  That  the  express  letter  of  our  constitution  asserts  the 
right  of  every  one  of  our  Presbyteries  and  of  other  courts  to  condemn 
error  in  doctrine  and  irregularity  in  practice  arising  therefrom,  apart 
from  judicial  arraignment  of  the  author.  (2.)  That  our  earlier  and 
later  assemblies  and  inferior  courts  have  done  this  very  thing,  not 
merely  " in  the  abstract"  as  in  the  cases  of  Universalism  and  Socinian- 
ism,  etc.,  but  in  the  concrete,  in  any  publication,  whether  book,  ser- 
mon, or  pamphlet,  set  on  foot  by  any  one,  dead  or  .alive,  member  of  a 
Presbytery  or  not,  and  referring  to  the  publication  by  title  and  to  the 
author  of  the  publication  by  name.  (3.)  That  five  memorable  his- 
toric precedents  or  actual  cases  in  court  confirm  aod  illustrate  this 
exercise  of  episcopal  power ;  and  (4.)  That  judicial  process  against 
the  author,  or,  in  other  words,  the  judicial  arrest  of  the  person,  whether 
by  responsible  prosecutor  or  by  common  fame,  instead  of  the  examina- 
tion and  disapproval  of  the  thing,  is  not  the  first  but  always  the  last 
resort ;  and  this  I  afiirm  is  the  genius  of  our  constitution,  an  instru- 
ment framed  and  fraught  alike  with  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  charity, 
conservative  alike  of  its  doctrine  and  order  and  the  standing  of  our 
ministry,  the  best  possible  means  to  save  both  the  Church  and  her 
public  teachers  from  defection  and  destruction. 

And  now,  Moderator,  this  is  the  law  of  our  Church,  its  established 
law,  by  the  perpetual  power  of  the  standards,  by  memorable  exposi- 
tions and  precedents  in  all  our  courts,  contemporaneous  with  and  sue- 


21 

ceediiig  the  enactment  of  our  constitution,  and  by  the  hitest  as  well  as 
earliest  deliverances  of  our  supreme  court.  I  advance  now  to  say, 
that  it  is  the  law  of  our  Church,  established  triumphantly  also  by  the 
maxims  of  common  law  and  common  sense,  as  well  as  by  the  univer- 
sally recognized  rules  and  decisions  of  all  civil  courts,  where  contradic- 
tory decisions  have  existed  in  the  same  court  upon  questions  of  la\T 
over  which  the  court  has  proper  jurisdiction.  It  has  been  confidently 
asserted  in  the  Presbytery  that  the  decision  of  1834  is  the  law  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  so  regarded  by  'ninety-nine  hundredths"  of 
the  reunited  body — a  marvelous  assertion,  truly  !  Certainly  the  novel 
interpretation  of  1822  was  slain  by  the  latter  contrary  interpretation 
of  1824.  Upon  what  principle,  may  I  ask,  is  that  of  1834  exalted 
in  force  above  the  still  later  and  contrary  interpretation  of  1835  in 
the  undivided  Church  ?  Not,  certainly,  upon  any  principle  of  legal 
interpretation,  either  literal,  rational,  historical,  or  mixed.  Not,  cer- 
tainly, upon  the  ground  of  the  early  practice  of  the  Church,  uninter- 
rupted until  1822.  Such  logic  is  in  face  of  all  reason,  all  law,  all 
sense,  and  is  repugnant  to  the  rule  accepted  by  all  judges  and  enfoi-ced 
in  all  civil  courts.  '•'  Stare  decisis  et  quieta  non  movere  " — to  stand  by  the 
decisions  and  not  to  disturb  rights  and  principles  at  rest — is  an  ac- 
knowledged rule.  Judicial  interpretations  of  the  constitution,  con- 
temporaneous with  its  enactment  and  giving  the  sense  of  its  framers, 
will  be  upheld.  The  construction  of  the  law  by  the  courts  having 
jurisdiction  in  the  case,  at  the  time  and  afterward,  is  the  surest  and 
best  construction,  and  no  modal  limitation  is  to  be  inferred  which  may 
defeat  the  plain  intent  of  the  law.  A  principle  once  established  and 
continued,  under  the  construction  of  the  supreme  court  which  has 
jurisdiction  over  questions  of  constitutional  law,  is  to  be  maintained 
as  the  law  of  the  land.  The  construction  of  the  court  obtains  the 
force  and  acquires  the  sanction  of  constitutional  law  itself.  While  the 
constitution  remains  unchanged  the  construction  remains  unchanged 
also.  ""Stare  decisis" — abide  by  the  decisions.  Otherwise  a  change 
of  construction,  in  the  interest  of  any  excitement,  strikes  at  the  foun- 
dation of  all  principles  and  all  rights  confirmed  under  the  previous 
construction  and  opens  the  door  to  interminable  strife.  The  Assem- 
blies of  1822  and  1834  violated  this  wholesome  maxim.  They  did  not 
"abide  by  the  decisions."  They  did  disturb  the  "principles  and 
rights  at  rest."  They  uttered  contradictory  decisions  to  the  old,  and 
paved  the  way  for  what  followed.  Contemporaneous  exposition  was 
against  them.  An  uninterrupted  practice  until  1822  was  against 
them.  It  was  incumbent  on  the  Assemblies  of  1835  and  1837,  in  the 
yet  undivided  Church,  to  reclaim  and  reinstate  the  early  and  true 


22 

constructiou  of  the  clause  in  our  constitution,  which  acknowledges  the 
vested  right  of  Presbytery  "  to  condemn  erroneous  opinions  which 
injure  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church,"  and  set  aside  the  interpre- 
tation of  1834,  or  else  allow  the  new  construction,  antagonistic  to  the 
plain  intent  of  the  law  and  the  whole  spirit  of  our  constitution.  For 
who  does  not  know  that,  where  contradictory  decisions  exist,  the  "  last 
decision"  is  always  in  force  until  reversed.  Again  I  invoke  the  ac- 
knowledged maxims  of  law  by  which  the  courts  of  law  are  governed : 
"  Juclicia  230steriora  sunt  in  lege  fortiora" — the  later  decisions  are  the 
stronger  in  law ;  "  Judiciis  poster ioribas  fides  est  adhibenda  " — full  taith  is 
to  be  had  in  the  later  decisions;  "  Judicia  posteriora priora  abrogant''' — 
later  decisions  annul  the  earlier  contrary  ones.  Nothing  is  more  settled. 
The  last  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  on  a  question 
of  constitutional  law  will  stand  and  be  respected  as  against  any  former 
contradictory  one,  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  last  decision  of  the 
General  Assembly,  the  supreme  court  of  the  Church,  in  its  construc- 
tion of  the  clause  in  question.  Just  as  in  legislation  a  later  statute 
repeals  the  former  contradictory  one,  so  in  adjudication  the  later  judg- 
melit  of  the  court  annuls  the  prior  ones  in  conilict  therewith ;  and 
this  is  true  in  cases  both  of  original  and  appellate  jurisdiction.  The 
last  decision  of  the  Greneral  Assembly  is  final,  authoritative,  and  bind- 
ing on  all  inferior  courts  over  which  it  has  jurisdiction,  whether  Synods, 
Presbyteries,  or  Sessions. 

By  what  right,  then,  Moderator,  inlaw,  in  logic,  in  reason,  in  sense, 
or  history,  can  any  one  assert  that  the  decision  of  1834  is  of  superemi- 
nent  authority  and  binding  force,  as  against  the  later  decision  of  1835, 
which  occurred  in  the  undivided  Church?  Does  opposition  to  the- 
decision  of  1835  constitute  law,  especially  when  no  counter  subsequent 
decision  of  the  Assembly  is  to  be  found?  All  the  more,  again,  by  what 
right,  when,  by  the  very  terms  of  our  Reunion,  we  accept  as  law  that 
which  was  legally  established  antecedent  to  the  division  of  1838,  and 
our  "Concurrent  Declarations"  affirm  that  the  rules  and  precedents  of 
each  branch  of  the  Church,  only  subsequent  to  that  division,  shall  not  be 
regarded  as  law,  unless  "approved  by  both  the  bodies"  and  "re-estab- 
lished in  the  united  body  ?  " 

The  use,  by  Presbytery,  of  an  author's  name,  or  of  his  publication, 
in  condemning  erroneous  doctrines,  publicly  propagated  by  book, 
pamphlet,  newspaper,  and  circulated  over  the  author's  own  signature, 
or  preached  from  the  pulpit,  advocated  in  special  lectures  on  the  plat- 
form, and  advertised  from  place  to  place,  can  form  no  valid  matter  of 
objection  to  the  exercise  of  episcopal  power.  It  is  only  what  occurs 
in   ever}'   public  discussion    and  literary  criticism   of  the    works  of 


23 

theologians  and  moralists.  Tlie  author  uses  it  himself,  and  is  well 
known.  The  position  that  to  condemn  the  erroneous  opinions  or  doc- 
trines of  a  man  is  to  condemn  the  man  himself  as  a  heretic,  is  un- 
charitable, unhistoric,  unscriptural  and  illogical; — ^uncharitable  to  thu 
court,  for  it  subjects  the  court  to  the  imputation  of  an  attempt  to 
secure,  by  indirection,  a  censure  of  the  author,  which  it  may  fail  to 
gain  by  judicial  action,  so  forcing  a  construction  of  the  act  of  the 
court  that  can  not  be  justified  ; — uncharitable,  also,  to  the  author,  for  it 
labors  to  carry  over  to  the  author,  who  is  always  more  and  better  than 
his  errors,  a  disapproving  judgment  that  bears  against  the  error.< 
alone.  It  is  unhistoric  and  unscriptural,  for,  in  all  ages  of  the  Church, 
apostolic  and  post-apostolic,  and  under  all  forms  of  discipline,  only  he 
is  called  a  "  heretic  "  wdio  obstinately  and  contumaciously  declines  to 
hear  the  admonition  of  the  Church.  So  Bingham  shows,  as  I  shall 
hereafter  quote.  So  the  Apostle  instructs^us:  "A  man  that  is  a  heretic, 
after  the  first  and  secojid  admonition,  reject."  It  is  illogical  on  many 
accounts,  for  it  assumes  that  a  judgment  against  erroneous  doctrine  i« 
a  judgment  against  the  person,  character,  and  standing,  of  the  author. 
And  yet,  in  the  same  breath,  severe  judicial  process  is  invoked  t« 
secure  the  very  end  apparently  so  iiSuch  deplored!  This  is  inconsistent, 
for  surely  the  exercise  of  authoritative  non-judicial  power  is  milder 
and  more  tender  than  the  exercise  of  forensic  procedure, — for  while  a 
judgment  against  the  author,  by  judicial  process,  aims  at  the  person, 
character,  standing  and  usefulness  of  the  man,  a  judgment  against  th« 
thing  alone,  leaves  the  person,  character,  standing,  usefulness  un- 
touched. Pride  may  object,  but  neither  justice  nor  reason  can. 
Peter's  standing  was  not  impaired  by  Paul's  reproof  at  Antioch. 
neither  were  the  churches  of  Cilicia  and  Syria  injured  by  the  injunc- 
tion of  the  Jerusalem  Council. 

The  objection,  moreover,  assumes  that  because  the  author  of  error 
is  under  the  jurisdiction  of  some  Presbytery,  therefore  no  judgment 
can  emerge  against  his  error,  except  upon  judicial  process.  Formal 
verdict  of  "guilty,"  as  in  the  case  of  "crime,"  must  be  found  and 
formally  declared.  The  whole  man  and  his  opinions  must  be  s») 
chained  together,  under  the  categories  of  moral  guilt  and  crime,  that 
no  admonition  may  be  allowed,  and  no  injunction  b;?  imposed,  except 
upon  a  personal  conviction.  That. is,  the  mere  fiict  of  jurisdiction,  or 
jurisdiction,  ipso  facto,  compels  extreme  forensic  process.  But  this 
is  a  petitio.  Jurisdiction  does  not,  ex  yiecessitate,  compel  forensic  pro- 
cess against  the  author.  It  is  simply  a  dictio  juris,  or  saying  of  the 
law,  that  both  the  man  and  his  doctrines  are  amenable  to  the  authority 
of  some  particular  court,  to  be  dealt  with  in  any  one  of  the  different 


24 

constitutional  modes  deemed  best  for  the  edification  of  tlie  Church. 
Jurisdiction  imposes  no  necessity  for  this,  rather  than  that,  procedure. 
Such  necessity  rests  on  other  grounds. 

The  objection  still  further  assumes  that  the  clause,  Form  of  Govern- 
ment, Chap.  X,  Sec.  8,  means  only  a  condemnation  of  error  in  thesl, — m 
other  words,  the  Presbytery  is  shut  up  either  to  judicial  arraignment 
of  the  author,  or  to  a  deliverance  against  an  abstraction.  But  what 
is  the  character  of  this  abstraction  ?  Where  shall  we  find  it  ?  Where 
there  is  jurisdiction  in  cases  of  erroneous  doctrine,  it  binds  to  judicial 
process,  it  is  alleged.  The  logical  consequence  of  this  is,  there  can 
be  no  such  thing  as  a  condemnation  of  error  in  the  abstract  inside  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  no  matter  how  wide-spread  or  rife  it  may  be, 
for  all  persons  inside  the  Presbyterian  Church  are  nnder  its  jurisdiction , 
and  where  there  is  jurisdiction  over  error,  judicial  process,  it  is  argued, 
must  obtain.  Fate  is  not  more  inevitable  than  the  logical  conclusion 
from  these  premises,  that  "  error  in  the  abstract '""  means  error  outside  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  that  is,  outside  of  its  jurisdiction.  The 
Presbyterian  Church,  therefore,  can  condemn  erroneous  opinions,  rife  in 
her  own  bosom,  in  no  other  way  than  by  the  judicial  trial,  in  detail,  of 
every  man  who  holds  them,  because  every  man  is  under  her  jurisdic- 
tion !  Condemnation  of  error  in  thesi,  therefore,  means  condemnation 
of  error  outside  of  the  Presbyterian  Church !  And  this  is  what  is 
meant  by  the  clause  in  Form  of  Government,  Chapter  X,  Section  81 
The  whole  authoritative  character  of  the  Presbytery,  in  relation  to 
error  in  doctrine,  inside  of  the  Church,  is  reduced  to  judicial  process. 
To  such  absurdity  are  we  brought  by  objecting  to  the  use  of  a  name  ! 
See  Baird's  Digest,  p.  669 '(8);  672,  §120;  730,  §168;  731  (4). - 
Against  such  illogical  position  the  decision  of  1835  Avas  directed ;  a 
decision  still  of  binding  foice.  It  is  gratuitous  to  say  that  the  clause. 
Form  of  Government,  Chapter  X,  Section  8,  means  only  condemna- 
tion in  thesi,  whether  inside  or  outside  our  jurisdiction.  The  book 
does  not  say  so.  The  interpretation  is  a  gloss,  not  an  exposition ;  a 
modal  limitation  upon  the  law,  imported  into  the  text,  not  drawn 
from  it ;  a  restriction  of  its  broad  intent,  which  no  jurist  would  decree 
as  just.  Action  in  thesi  is  included,  but  the  vested  power  of  the 
Presbytery,  under  that  clause,  is  not  limited  thereto.  The  criticism, 
that  the  exercise  of  episcopal  power  against  error  would  cast  some 
reflection  on  the  author,  is  sentimental.  It  is  the  duty  of  Diotrephes, 
Alexander  the  coppersmith,  Demas,  Hymeneus  and  Philetus,  to  make 
such  reflection  impossible.  But  what  is  the  reflection  in  this  case  com- 
pared with  it  in  cases  judicial? 

The  objectien,   moreover,  is  theologically  untenable.     Nothing  is 


25 

clearer  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  than  tliat  the  errors  and  sins  of  a  be- 
liever are  constantly  condemned  before  God  and  the  world,  while  to 
the  person  and  standing  of  the  believer  there  is  "no  condemnation" 
whatever.  This  one  fact  alone  is  conclusive  proof  of  the  incorrectness 
of  the  position  that  the  condemnation  of  error  is  equivalent  to  tlie 
condemnation  of  its  author.  Were  such  a  position  true,  in  itself,  or 
relatively,  it  would  not  be  possible  for  God  to  condemn  sin,  in  the 
believer,  without  condemning  the  person  of  the  believer  at  the  same 
time.  It  is  bad  theology.  It  is  as  bad  polity.  The  spirit  of  the 
polity  of  Christ  is  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  tlie  doctrine  of  Christ, 
and  not  against  it.  It  is  the  grace  of  the  gospel -doctrine  that  inter- 
venes to  protect  the  person  of  the  believer,  while  it  condemns  his  sins. 
It  is  the  same  grace  of  gospel-polity  that  intervenes  to  protect  the 
not  yet  contumacious  person  of  the  teacher,  while  yet  it  condemns 
his  errors.  It  is  lawful,  right,  wise  and  expedient,  to  condemn 
the  error  and  irregularity  of  any  member  of  Presbytery,  without 
arraigning  his  person  in  formal  trial  before  a  judicial  bar. 

Thus,  the  whole  objection  is  uncharitable,  unhistorical,  unscriptural, 
and  rests  upon  prejudices,  assumptions,  sentitnentalisras,  importations, 
illogical  inferences,  and  irrelavent  conclusions — all  confronted  by  the 
letter  of  the  constitution,  the  nature  of  the  power  vested  in  the 
Chui'ch,  by  apostolic  example,  by  the  precedents  of  our  court,  and  by 
the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  itself. 

The  fundamental  false  postulate  upon  which  the  whole  objection 
rests,  and  to  which  every  argument  of  the  objecter  returns,  is  the 
denial,  outright,  of.  the  authoritative  character  of  episcopal  or  pater- 
nal power,  confining  that  authority  to  judicial  determinations,  and 
restricting  the  idea  of  "discipline"  to  forensic  process.  It  divests 
the  testifying  function  of  the  Church  of  its  whole  authoritative  value, 
reducing  her  witness  for  the  truth  of  Christ,  to  mere  advice,  to  be 
rejected  or  received,  at  will.  It  denies  the  binding  nature  of  that  tes- 
timony. It  makes  it  simply  moral  suasion,  man's  word,  not  God's 
demand.  In  dealing  with  error  everything  not  judicial  is  called  advi- 
sory. It  is  a  compromise  with  Independency — pure  Brownism.  It 
denies  that  the  Church  is  the  steward  of  God  invested  by  Christ,  min- 
isterially, to  rule  the  understanding,  conscience,  and  belief  of  man, 
and  dictate,  according  to  God's  Word,  what  shall  be  maintained  as 
truth  and  what  condemned  as  error,  apart  from  judicial  process.  It 
asserts  that,  save  in  a  case  of  judicial  process,  the  authority  of  the 
Church  in  reference  to  error  amounts  to  a  mere  power  of  advice,  in 
other  words,  no  authority  whatever — a  power  binding  none,  but  a  mere 
opinion,  to  be  entertained  or  not,  at  pleasure.     It  lifts  the  voice  of 


26 

remonstrance  against  the  authoritative  exercise  of  the  very  power 
Christ  has  delegated  to  His  Church,  as  an  invasion  of  the  rights  of 
ministers  and  men,  a  power  so  abundantly  illustrated  by  the  Church, 
in  all  ages.  It  exclaims  against  authority  where  forensic  forms  are 
wanting.  It  relegates  public  offenses  against  the  truth  to  the  category 
of  private  ones,  then  challenges  the  right  of  court,  or  minister,  to 
prosecute,  unless  some  private  injury  has  been  received.  It  deems  a 
private  conference  and  explanation,  with  liberty  abundant  still  to 
teach  the  error,  an  all-sufficient  satisfaction  to  the  Church  and  to  the 
truth.  It  holds  that  ^idmonition  and  injunction  can  never  be  employed 
for  the  arrest  of  error,  till  all  judicial  forms  have  been  exhausted.  Its 
tendency  is  evil.  It  disintegrates,  demoralizes.  It  mars  the  sense  of 
solemn  obligation,  creates  indifference  to  vows,  hostility  to  creeds, 
invites  debates  on  things  forever  settled ;  degrades  the  ministry, 
destroys  its  influence,  corrupts  the  Church,  depreciates  the  truth  of 
God,  disputes  the  law  of  Christ,  and  grieves  the  Spirit  of  all  grace.  It 
ends,  at  last,  in  open  insubordination,  and  resistance  to  all  authority, 
judicial  and  ejjiscopal  alike.  History  repeats  itself,  and  wisdom  may 
take  lesson  from  the  past. 

But,  IModerator,  in  addition  to  all  I  have  said,  I  would  emphasize 
the  fact,  already  alluded  to,  that  the  whole  episcopal  power  the  Pres- 
bytery possesses  to  condemn  error  in  doctrine  and  practice,  apart  from 
forensic  forms,  so  far  from  being  unconstitutional,  is  grounded  in  that 
solemn  evangelical  commission  which  Christ,  the  Head  of  the  Church, 
gave  to  His  apostles,  and,  through  them,  to  the  gospel  ministry  for  all 
time.  In  four  passages  of  the  New  Testament  (Matthew  xvi.  19  ; 
Matthew  xviii.  18;  Matthew  xxviii.  19,  20;  John  xx.  21-23j,  the 
charter  for  the  whole  disciplinary  power  of  the  Church  is  contained. 
It  relates,  not  to  extraordinary  and  rniraculous  endowment,  peculiar  to 
apostolic  times,  but  to  ordinary  and  perpetual  functions,  durable  to  the 
world's  end.  This  plenary  power,  thus  delegated  by  Christ  to  the 
apostles,  each  minister  possesses  to  its  whole  extent.  Will  any  one  be 
so  foolish  as  to  say  that,  under  such  a  charter,  a  Presbytery,  Synod,  or 
General  Assembly  possesses  less  power,  less  authority,  than  is  given  by 
Christ  to  each  one  of  the  individual  members  composing  it,  or  that 
such  power  is  only  to  be  exercised  under  judicial  forms,  for  the  pre- 
servation of  truth  and  the  suppression  of  error?  Was  it  forensic  pro- 
cess, think  you,  of  which  the  Saviour  spoke  when  He  lifted  up  His  hands 
on  Olivet  to  bless  His  chosen,  while  His  feet  parted  from  the  mountain 
and  a  cloud  received  Him  out  of  their  sight?  Sir,  it  was  a  gift  of 
episcopal  power  from  the  "chief  Shepherd  and  Bishop"  of  our  souls, 
bequeathed  to  ordained  overseers  of  the  flock,  and  adequate  to  all  the 


27 

necessities  of  the  Church  lienceforth  and  for  evermore— an  authorita- 
tive power  of  instruction,  inspection,  and  government,  to  be  executed 
in  His  name.  And  well  did  the  first  princes  in  the  Church  understand 
their  commission.  Were  Simon  Magus,  or  the  incestuous  Corinthian, 
served  with  an  ecclesiastical  libel,  and  allowed  a  year  and  a  half,  or 
two  years,  of  judicial  process,  through  ascending  appelate  courts,  be- 
fore a  conclusive  sentence  overtook  them?  Were  the  erroneous  opin- 
ions of  Judaising  and  Gnosticising  teachers,  who  ventilated  their  soul- 
aubverting  words  and  walked  disorderly,  tabulated  into  formal  accusa- 
tions, witnesses  cited,  cross-examinations  had,  wranglings  perpetuated, 
two  appeals  taken,  and  bitter  parties  formed,  before  the  errors  them- 
selves were  condemned?  Did  Paul  sist  Peter  in  a  judicial  process  at 
Antioch  for  his  half  Christian  conduct  and  time-serving  dissimulation? 
Was  Titus  commanded  to  institute  judicial  investigation  against  publie 
offenders  before  he  dared  to  "admonish"  them,  or  "rebuke  them 
sharply"  and  "before  all,"  that  they  might  be  "sound  in  the  fiiith?" 
Think  you  the  apostle  reluctated  to  mention  the  names  of  Hymeneus 
and  Philetus,  Alexander  and  Demas,  Hermogenes  and  Phygellus,  or 
note  by  special  designation  the  "unruly  and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers 
of  the  circumcision,  whose  mouths  must  be  stopped,  who  subvert 
whole  houses,  teaching  things  which  they  ought  not,  for  fiithy/lucre's 
sake?"  Was  there  any  "  reflection"  here'}  Or  think  you  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  himself,  in  glory,  deemed  it  "unconstitutional"  and  "out 
of  order"  to  spot  "  that  woman  Jezebel"  in  the  church  at  Thyatria,  or 
name  the  Balaamites  in  Pergamos,  before  a  responsible  prosecutor  had 
stood  up,  or  formal,  charges  had  been  preferred  ?  No,  Moderator,  it 
was  an  exercise  of  episcopal  power,  as  I  have  said,  by  the  chief  Shep- 
herd and  Bishop  of  our  souls,  who  walked  unseen  among  the  golden 
candlesticks  and  said,  "  I  know  thy  works." 

The  Thessalonian  Church  was  enjoined  to  "  warn  them  that  are  un- 
ruly." Must  judicial  process  be  commenced  by  the  Presbytery  of 
Thessalouica?  The  Corinthian  Church  is  enjoined  "not  to  company 
with"  the  gross  offenders  named  by  the  apostle.  Must  the  offenses  be 
first  proved  by  judicial  process  against  the  offenders?  The  Ephesian 
Church  is  enjoined  "  to  have  no  fellowship  with  the  unfruitful  works 
of  darkness,  but  rather  reprove  them."  Was  it  that  Presbytery  must 
meet  and  institute  a  judicial  process  before  admonition  or  injunction 
could  go  forth?  Timothy  and  Titus  are  ordered  to  "rebuke  openly, 
before  all,  them  that  sin,  that  others  may  fear."  Has  a  Presbytery 
less  power  than  Timothy  or  Titus?  "A  man  that  is  a  heretic,  after  the 
first  and  second  admonition,  reject."  Did  the  Presbytery  refuse  to  ad- 
monish or  reject  until  after  judicial  process  ?    The  Roman  Church  was 


28 

enjoined  "  to  mark  them  which  cause  divisions  and  offenses,  contrary 
to  the  doctrine"  they  had  learned,  and  "avoid  them."  Was  it  to  be 
done  only  after  judicial  process?  John  enjoins  the  whole  Church  not 
to  "  receive  into  the  house,"  nor  salute,  a  corrupter  of  the  truth. 
Was  it  an  injunction  to  institute  judicial  process?  The  truth  is  that 
the  administration  of  godly  discipline  for  the  preservation  of  the  truth 
and  morals  of  the  Church  is  by  episcopal  function,  apart  from  forensic 
forms,  except  in  the  last  resort.  It  is  of  the  same  nature  as  that  of  a 
father  over  his  own  house,  who,  having  learned  to  rule  well  therein, 
*'  knows  how  to  take  care  of  the  Church  of  God.'" 

Who  were  the  "some  among  you  "in  the  Corinthian  Church  who 
denied  the  resurrection  ?  Were  they  not  as  distinctly  marked  by  these 
discriminating  words  as  were  the  Cretan  "  slow-bellies  and  liars"  them- 
gelves  ?  What  kind  of  power  was  it  the  Jerusalem  Council  exercised 
under  a  non-judicial  reference  from  Antioch,  against  "certain  men" 
well  known,  who  accounted  circumcision  more  than  Christ  and  His 
cross,  and  preached  without  restraint  their  soul-subverting  doctrine  ? 
Was  it  error  only  "in  the  abstract "  that  council  condemned — error, 
evasive  of  all  allusion  to  its  propagators,  or  its  reported  relation  to  the 
particular  Church  at  Antioch  ?  Was  forensic  process  ordered  to  be  in- 
stituted against  the  Judaizers  or  those  who  had  imbibed  their  false 
teaching  ?  No,  Episcopal  power  was  invoked,  thfe  power  of  the  Je- 
rusalem Presbytery,  as  such,  and  exercised  to  its  oecumenical  extent. 
Error  in  doctrine  and  practice  was  condemned.  The  emissaries  of 
Judaism,  from  their  headquarters  at  Jerusalem,  "false  brethren,  un- 
awares brought  in,  wlio  came  in  privily  to  spy  out  the  liberty"  of  Gen- 
tile Christians  in  "Christ  Jesus,  that  they  might  bring  them  into 
bondage,"  were  put  under  the  ban.  The  Churches  in  Antioch,  Syria, 
and  Cilicia  were  all  admonished  and  enjoined,  apart  from  forensic  pro- 
cedure. Verse  24th  of  the  fifteenth  of  Acts  is  a  simple  preamble; 
verse  29th  is  simply  a  resolution  of  injunction. 

If  we  do  but  read  the  Scriptures  carefully,  we  shall  find  that  the 
discipline  of  the  Apostolic  Church  confined  itself  to  admonition  first  of 
all,  solemnly  and  twice  repeated,  before  procedure  to  greater  severities. 
We  shall  next  detect  the  more  impressive  warning  that  followed  ;  then 
the  sharp  rebuke  and  the  authoritative  injunction  against  both  error  in 
doctrine  and  practice,  by  the  sole  exercise  of  episcopal  power,  vested 
by  Christ  in  His  chosen  ministry,  apart  from  all  judicial  process.  We 
shall  then  learn  that  it  was  contumacy  against  such  admonition,  warn- 
ing, rebuke,  and  injunction,  that  paved  the  way  for  excommunication. 
If  judicial  process  ever  entered  it  was  only  after  all  other  means  had 
been  exhausted.     Surely,  if  in  the  case  of  notorious  error,  like  that  of 


29 

Simon  Magus,  or  notorious  practice,  like  that  of  the  "incestuous" 
man  of  Corinth,  the  notoriety  of  the  fact,  or  what  was  *'  commonly- 
reported  "  and  known  to  all  as  true,  made  the  offender,  ipso  facto,  liable 
to  excommunication,  what  folly  it  is  to  deny  tlie  Church's  right  of 
mere  admonition  and  injunction  when  common  fame  and  documentary 
evidence  in  court,  bright  as  daylight,  make  the  case  beyond  dispute  ! 

The  history  of  the  sub-Apostolic  Church,  long  before  the  existence 
of  Theodosian  and  Justinian  codes  with  civil  penalties  for  error,  only 
confirms  the  interpretation  I  have  given  of  the  exercise  of  episcopal 
power.  Errors  in  doctrine  and  practice  were  condemned,  uniformly, 
befoi'e  extreme  process  was  instituted  against  their  authors.  "  The 
directions,"  says  Bingham  (Antiquities,  II,  p.  891),  "were  drawn  up 
upon  the  models  of  those  rules  of  the  Apostles  which  forbade  Christians 
to  give  any  countenance  to  notorious  offenders."  "  Errorists  are  they 
who,  when  they  are  reproved  for  their  unsound  opinions,  contuma- 
ciously resist"  (II,  981).  The  offenders  were  named,  their  errors  con- 
demned, and  the  Churches  were  warned  and  enjoined  as  well  as  the 
offender  himself,  who  was  admonished  or  rebuked.  It  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  framed  upon  the  Apostolic  model,  in  all 
times  and  countries,  and  signal  examples  of  which  are  found  in  all  her 
history.  "It  thus  appears,"  says  Sir  Henry  Wellwood  Moncrief,  con- 
vener of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  ■'  that 
the  Free  Church,  by  retaining  the  old  form  of  process  as  part  of  her 
law,  would  restrain  a  Presbytery  from  instituting  or  entertaining  a  regular 
process  against  any  minister  until  all  means  have  been  exhausted  for  pre- 
venting the  necessity  of  such  a  process  being  entered  on."  (Practice  of  the 
Free  Church,  Edinburg,  1871,  p.  118.)  It  is  the  assertion  of  episcopal 
power  as  lodged  in  the  Presbytery,  and  precisely  to  the  same  end  is 
the  comment  of  Stewart  of  Pardovan,  the  Blackstone  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  in  his  "  Methodised  Observations"  upon  the  clause  in 
our  Form  of  Government,  Chapter  X,  Section  8,  giving  power  to  the 
Presbytery  to  "condemn  erroneous  opinions  whicli  injure  the  purity 
or  peace  of  the  Church" — upon  which  he  says  that  the  Presbytery  has 
not  only  the  power  of  "censiiring  ministers,"  of  "rebuking  gross  or  con- 
tumacious sinners,"  but  also  the  power  "of  answering  of  questicms,  cases 
of  conscience,  solving  of  difficulties  in  doctrine  or  discipline,  with  peti- 
tions from  their  own  or  those  in  other  Presbyteries,  examining  and 
censuring  according  to  the  Word  of  God  any  erroneous  doctrine  which  hath 
been  publicly  or  more  privately  vented  within  their  bounds,  and  the 
endeavoring,  the  reducing,  and  conversion  of  any  that  remain  in  error 
and  schism."     (Obser.  Method.,  Book  I,  Title  XII,  Section  4.) 

How  different  from   our  practice,  that    would  do  nothing  except 


30 

resort  to  judicial  process  ia  the  veiy  start!  Deprive  the  Church 
of  Christ  of  her  right  to  bear  testimony  against  and  condemn  error 
in  doctrine  and  practice,  vented  in  her  own  bosom,  apart  from  judicial 
process,  to  admonish,  warn,  reprove,  rebuke,  enjoin  ;  deny  to  Presby- 
tery this  right,  a  right  accorded  to  every  pastor  and  elder  by  the  Word 
of  God,  and  enforced  in  every  Apostolic  letter,  and  the  mission  of  the 
Church,  as  a  witness  for  the  Truth,  its  pillar,  ground,  and  guardian,  is 
concluded  forever.  With  this,  therefore,  I  close  the  discussion  of  the 
first  reason  to  the  first  point  of  my  Complaint,  by  affirming  that  the 
action  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati  was  a  repudiation  of  the  right 
vested  in  it  by  the  Head  of  the  Church,  to  condemn  erroneous  opinions 
which  injure  its  peace  and  purity,  a  right  guaranteed  by  the  constitu- 
tion itself  and  protected  by  parliamentary  rule. 

(2.)  The  second  reason  in  support  of  my  first  point  of  Complaint  is, 
that  the  action  of  Presbytery,  sustaining  the  decision  of  the  Moderator 
(see  first  point  of  Complaint),  was  "a  violation  of  parUamentary  rule,  in 
derogation  of  my  constitutional  right  to  introduce  my  Preamble  and  Reso- 
lutions, and  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  same  after  they  were  seconded, 
and  i  was  entitled  to^the  floor,  no  matter  what  the  result  might  have 
been  on  the  final  vote,  after  discussion." 

I  claim,  Moderator,  that,  when  I  was  interrupted  on  the  floor  of 
the  Presbytery  by  DV.  Morris,  who  rose  to  a  "  point  of  order,"  assert- 
ing that  my  Preamble  and  Resolutions  were  unconstitutional,  and, 
therefore,  that  even  the  "  consideration"  of  them  was  not  to  be  enter- 
tained, and  when  the  Moderator  of  the  Presbytery  decided  that  the 
point  was  "well  taken,"  and  the  Presbytery  sustained,  on  appeal,  this 
decision,  I  was  perfectly  "in  order."  The  rules  «»  order  in  both 
houses  of  Congress,  in  our  State  Legislatures,  and  in  deliberative 
bodies  in  general,  are  derived  from  the  British  Parliament,  and  modi- 
fied to  suit  our  various  circumstances.  The  rules  of  order  for  our 
Church  judicatories  have  the  same  origin.  We  have  thus  acquired  a 
system  of  parliamentary  regulations,  prescribing  and  defining  a  cer- 
tain fixed  mode  of  procedure  in  the  course  of  deliberative  business. 
Our  general  rules  oC  order,  which  form  no  part  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  forms  no  part  of  them,  are  inscribed  in  our  Digest,  pp.  204  to 
208,  and  are  forty-three  in  number.  As  to  the  order  prescribed  in 
"judicial  process,"  I  do  not  hear  speak.  It  belongs  to  the  process 
itself,  Presbytery  acting  as  a  court,  and  not  as  a  deliberative  and  parlia- 
mentary body.  According  to  Rule  of  Order  XIV,  whenever  a  motion  is 
made,  seconded,  written,  and  read  aloud,  and  the  mover  addresses  the 
Moderator  (Rule  XXXI),  being  entitled  to  the  floor,  he  conforms  to 


31 

the  rules  of  order  laid  down  for  the  guidance  of  our  courts.  My  Pre- 
amble and  Kesohition  were  in  writing;  they  were  duly  seconded  ;  no 
other  business  was  before  the  house,  and  I  was  entitled  to  the  floor  by 
the  Moderator's  decision,  none  dispuling  it ;  I  addressed  the  chair ;  I 
was  respectful  to  my  brethren.  The  Investigating  Committee  had  re- 
ported, and  the  official  documents  necessary  to  sustain  ray  Preamble 
and  Resolutions  were  upon  the  table,  subject  to  the  call  of  myself  or 
any  member  of  the  body.  I  had  not  only  a  constitutional  right  to 
introduce  a  Preamble  and  Resolutions,  the  object  of  which  was  to 
disapprove  erroneous  opinions  already  disapproved  of  by  the  Com- 
mittee itself,  but  also  a  parliamentary  right  to  debate  the  Preamble 
and  Resolutions  themselves  upon  their  merits.  There  are  two  classes 
of  motions,  both  of  which  are  in  order,  but  only  one  of  which  is  in 
order  to  be  discussed  upon  their  merits;  in  other  words,  there  are 
motions  tfebateable  and  it/idebateable.  In  conformity  with  all  parlia- 
mentary manuals,  our  rules  of  order  specify  both.  (See  Rule  XVIII.) 
The  motions  ^mdebatable  on  their  merits  are  :  "  to  lay  on  the  table," 
"  to  take  up  business,"  "  to  adjourn,"  and  "  the  call  for  the  previous 
question."  All  other  motions,  without  exception,  are  debateable  on  their 
merits.  No  power  can  deprive  a  man  of  his  right  to  debate  a  debate- 
able  motion.  My  Preamble  and  Resolutions,  therefore,  were  not  only 
"in  order,"  according  to  our  rules,  but  debateable  on  their  merits  by 
the  same  rules  ;  and  this  is  a  universal  rule.  (See  the  Manuals  of  Jef- 
ferson, Cushing,  Roberts,  and  Warrington,  on  "Motions.")  I  was  "  in 
order."  I  had  violated  no  pari ia men tar}^  rule  of  procedure  in  busi- 
ness. The  action  of  the  Presbytery,  sustaining  the  Moderator  and 
declaring  me  "  out  of  order,"  was,  therefore,  itself,  a  violation  of  par- 
liamentary rule  in  derogation  of  my  constitutional  rights  of  free  dis- 
cussion on  the  merits  of  the  case  before  us.  It  was  abundantly  com- 
petent for  the  Presbytery,  after  I  had  been  heard,  to  make  their 
assumed  unconstitutionality  of  ray  motion  their  reason,  if  they  .saw 
fit,  for  voting  down  my  motion,  and  putting  ray  Preamble  and  Reso- 
lutions out  of  the  house.  But,  i  submit  that  such  assumed  unconsti- 
tutionality was  no  reason  whatsoever  why,  when  perfectly  "  in  or- 
der," I  should  have  been  pronounced  "  out  of  order,"  as  at  a  previous 
Presbytery,  and  thus  twice  be  denied  both  my  constitutional  and  par- 
liamentary rights  to  debate  the  merits  of  my  motion.  I  shall  return 
to  this  again.     1  was  perfectly  "in  order." 

(8.)  The  third  reason  in  support  of  my  first  point  of  Complaint  (see 
first  point  of  Complaint)  was,  that  "said  decision  of  the  Moderator, 
sustained  and  sanctioned  by  the  Presbytery,  was  an  exercise  of  the 
most  responsible  prerogative  reserved  to  the  General  Assembly,  viz. : 


32 

that  of  deddmg  questions  of  constitutional  law  and  binding  its  interpretation 
on  the  court  as  a  rule  of  action."  Individual  Presbyteries  or  Synods 
have  no  right  to  bind  their  interpretations  of  constitutional  law  as  a 
rule  of  action  on  the  court,  much  less,  where  Ihe  supreme  court  itself 
has,  after  a  sharp  contest,  announced  a  definitive  decision,  and  appli- 
cable precisely  to  such  cases  as  the  one  referred  to  in  my  Preamble 
and  Resolutions.  It  matters  not,  that  a  person,  charged  with  teaching 
erroneous  opinions,  denies  the  opinions  charged,  or  even  his  own  writ- 
ten langivage.  This  is  no  bar  to  deliberation.  "  Allegans  contraria 
nan  est  audiendus."  It  rather  concludes  the  case  against  him.  A 
man  may  multiply  denials  and  self-contradictions  perpetually.  This 
may  be  a  reason  why  preamble  and  resolutions  should  not  be 
adopted,  upon  a  final  vote,  but  it  is  no  reason  why  they  should 
be  declared  as  "  out  of  order,"  nor  is  it  any  reason  in  support  of 
the  Presbytery's  assumption  of  the  Assembly's  prerogative  to  decide 
constitutional  law  and  bind  it  as  a  rule  of  action  on  the  court.  Again, 
I  appeal  to  the  acknowledged  maxim  of  law,  "Ejus  est  interpretari,  cujus 
est  condere,"— it  belongs  to  that  power  to  interpret  the  law,  whose  ofiice 
it  is  to  settle  and  establish  it.  To  the  General  Assembly,  therefore, 
composed  of  the  representatives  of  Presbyteries,  or  in  other  words,  to 
Presbyteries  in  Assembly  by  means  of  their  representations,  but  not 
to  Presbyteries  individually,  pertains  this  high  prerogative.  Other- 
wise, our  Church  would  become  a  very  Babel  of  multiplied  and  con- 
tradictory decisions  upon  questions  of  constitutional  law,  confusion  worse 
confounded.  The  interpretation  of  the  Assembly  is  binding  law,  and 
not  the  interpretation  of  the  individual  Presbytery. 

The  Presbytery's  action  assumed  to  interpret  the  clause  in  ourForra 
of  Government,  Chapter  X,  Section  8,  "to  condemn  erroneous  opin- 
ions," etc.,  as  meaning,  that  no  court  can  condemn  such  opinions 
except  by  judicial  arraignment  of  their  author.  But  this  exception  is 
an  interpolation  of  the  constitution.  It  is  an  addition,  an  unauthor- 
ized gloss,  not  only  in  the  face  of  a  previous  and  discriminating  clause 
as  to  "judging  ministers,"  a  clause  involving  both  the  person  and  the 
judicial  jyrocess  together,  but  directly  in  face  of  contrary  and  binding 
decisions  of  our  supreme  court  itself.  AVhere  does  the  constitution 
say,  Moderator,  that  Presbyteries  have  no  power  to  condemn  errone- 
ous opinions,  except  by  the  modal  limitation  of  judicial  process?  No- 
where. That  limitation  defeats  "  the  plain  intent  of  the  law,"  and  is 
a  mere  obiter  dictum,  without  the  least  authority.  Not  less  unauthor- 
ized is  the  assertion  that  "  the  exercise  of  episcopal  power  is  a  usurpa- 
tion of  the  judicial  without  submitting  to  its  limitations."  This  is  to 
deny  both   the   letter  of  the   constitution  and  the  decisions  of  our 


33 

supreme  court.  Judicial  process  is  always  the  last  resort  and  not  the 
first.  The  Presbytery  had  no  right  to  put  Us  interpretation  upon  the 
constitution  in  face  of  the  Assembly's  interpretation  of  our  law,  already 
given. 

And  this  was  the  doctrine  of  the  very  Assembly  of  1834  itself.  In 
the  most  express  terms  that  Assembly  affirmed,  that  to  the  General 
Assembly  alone  it  belongs  to  interpret  the  constitution.  It  said  these 
words,  "  the  Form  of  Government  vests  the  right  of  deciding  questions 
of  constitutional  law,  not  in  Synods,  but  in  the  General  Assembly." 
Moore's  Digest,  p.  263  (3).  According  to  this  announcement,  no  in- 
ferior court  and  no  moderator  may  assume  this  prerogative  and  bind  a 
new  interpretation  on  the  court  as  a  rule  of  action.  The  thing  to  be 
specially  remarked,  just  here,  is  this,  that  the  very  Assembly  of  1834, 
which  gave  a  wrong  iriterpretation  of  the  clause,  "  to  condemn  errone- 
ous opinions  which  injure  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church,"  by 
construing  said  clause  with  an  unauthorized  limitation,  was  the  very 
Assembly  which  yet  maintained  that  the  Supreme  court  alone  is  compe- 
tent to  interpret  the  constitution  and  bind  that  interpretation  as  a  rule 
of  action  on  all  our  courts. 

Precisely  the  same  doctrine  was  reaffirmed  by  the  Old  School  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  1844,  six  years  after  the  division.  It  said  these 
words:  "What  interest  has  the  Synod  more  than  other  Synods  or 
Presbyteries  in  giving  a  wrong  exposition  of  our  book.  When  we  in- 
terpret our  constitution,  the  voice  of  the  whole  Church  should  be  heard." 
(Moore's  Digest,  p.  598  (3).  Thus,  both  the  Old  School  and  the  New 
School  brethren  agreed  in  this,  that  the  prerogative  of  interpreting 
our  constitution  and  binding  the  interpretation  upon  all  the  courts,  as  a 
rule  of  action,  belongs  to  the  General  Assembly  alone.  And  all  the  more 
is  this  evident  as  we  learn,  from  our  supreme  decisions,  that  no  com- 
plaint will  lie,  in  any  case,  against  a  court  for  declining  to  usurp  this 
function  of  the  Assembly  (Moore's  Digest,  p.  598  (4),  but  that  it  will 
lie  against  the  exercise  of  this  function.  (Moore's  Digest,  p.  593  (4). 
Thus,  the  general  law  maxim,  "  Ejus  est  interpretari  cujus  est  condere,'' 
the  constitution  itself,  in  its  literal,  rational  and  historical  construction, 
brethren  of  both  Old  and  New  School  alike,  with  the  binding  de- 
cisions of  our  Digest  and  its  historical  precedents,  all  show  that  the 
Cincinnati  Presbytery,  in  the  action  I  complain  of,  usurped  the  high 
prerogative  of  the  General  Assembly. 

(4.)  The  fourth  reason  in  support  of  my  first  point  of  Complaint  is 
(see  first  point  of  Complaint),  "  that  the  action  of  Presbytery  was  the 
turning  of  a  constitutional  question  into  a  parliamentary  rule  of  order,  so 
inventing  a  new  rule  in  derogation  of  my  constitutional  and  parlia- 
mentary rights." 


34 

Moderator,  what  do  we  mean  when  we  use  the  expressions  "law" 
and  "order?"  Is  each  one  pleonastic  of  the  other?  Or,  is  there  a 
well-defined  and  settled  distinction  between  them  ?  True,  in  a  general 
and  wide  sense,  law  is  a  rule  of  action.  But  when  we  use  it  in  the 
expression,  "law  and  order,"  what  is  it  we  mean  by  law,  and  what  by 
order,  each  as  distinguished  from  the  other,  in  deliberative  bodies? 
The  conceptions  are  totally  different.  By  "  law"  we  mean,  our  consti- 
tution, an  organic  statute,  or  a  decision  of  the  supreme  court.  Our 
Confession  of  Faith,  Form  of  Government,  Book  of  Discipline,  Cate- 
chisms, Directory  of  Worship,  and  the  decisions  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, are  what  we  call  "Imv."  By  "order"  we  mean,  conformity  to  a 
prescribed  mode  of  procedure  in  business  in  a  deliberative  body,  and 
nothing  more.  When  we  say  law,  the  mind  goes  straight  to  the  con- 
stitution and  its  authorized  interpretation.  When  we  say  order,  the 
mind  goes  straight  to  parliamentery  rules  of  procedure  in  business. 
The  termini  of  the  two  conceptions,  and  the  contents  of  the  two,  are 
totally  different.  The  one  relates  wholly  to  tiie  constitution  and  its 
interpretation,  the  other  relates  whoDy  to  the  general  rules  of  our  judi- 
catories for  procedure  in  business — it  relates  to  "proceedings" — and 
such  is  the  definition  of  lexicographers  and  parliamentarians.  Mr. 
Webster's  definition  of  "order"  is  as  follows:  "Adherence  to  the 
point  in  discussion  according  to  established  rules  of  debate ;  as  the 
member  is  not  in  order,  i.  e.,  he  wanders  from  the  question."  "  Estab- 
lished mode  of  proceeding ; — the  motion  is  not  in  order."  "  Eegular- 
ity ;  settled  mode  of  operation."  The  definition  in  Jefferson's  Manual 
is  as  follows :  "  Order  in  conformity  with  the  rules  of  order  laid  down. 
Departure  from  the  rules,  is  a  breach  of  order."  In  that  majestic  vol- 
ume of  a  thousand  pages  by  Mr.  Cushing,  on  the  "  Law  and  Practice 
of  Legislative  Assemblies,"  founded  on  Hatsell's  celebrated  precedents, 
we  have  the  following  clear  and  unambiguous  words  :  "All  questions 
of  order  are  determined  by  reference  to  the  rules  of  order.  Any  mem- 
ber, rightfully  in  possession  of  the  house,  his  motion  having  been  sec- 
onded, is  in  order."  "And  it  is  the  right  of  members  to  originate 
propositions,  at  their  pleasure,  for  the  consideration  of  the  house ;  and 
any  member,  in  possession  of  the  house,  may  make  any  motion  he 
thinks  proper." 

Now,  Moderator,  where  in  all  our  rules  of  order  is  the  interpretation 
of  the  constitution  according  to  the  Assembly  of  1834  to  be  found  ? 
Where  is  our  constitution  found  in  the  rules  of  order  ?  Where  are  any 
of  the  decisions  of  any  of  our  General  Assemblies  found  in  the  rules 
of  order?  And  by  what  right  did  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati  make 
its  interpretation  of  the  constitution  a  rule  of  order,  and,  upon   that 


35 

ground,  rule  my  Preamble  and  Resolutions  as  ^' out  of  order  f"  The 
thing  is  too  evident  to  require  discussion.  Nothing  is  a  ^' point  of  order" 
in  parliamentary  debate  ivhich  does  not  relate  to  accepted  rules  of  order  pre- 
scribed for  procedure  in  business.  1  was  perfectly  in  order,  according  to 
the  rules  of  our  court,  as  I  have  already  shown.  I  violated  no  parlia- 
mentary regulation,  either  at  Glendale  or  at  Cincinnati.  My  paper 
was  before  the  house,  written  and  seconded,  no  other  business  being 
before  the  body,  and  was  just  as  much  in  order  as  the  papers  of  Dr. 
Morris  or  those  of  Messrs.  Ritchie,  Hills,  and  Stanton.  A  man  is  in 
order,  if  he  conforms  to  the  parliamentary  rules  of  procedure  in  busi- 
•  ness.  He  may  be  perfectly  in  order,  while  his  motion  may  be  per- 
fectly unconstitutional,  and  his  motion  may  be  perfectly  constitutional, 
while  he  himself  is  as  perfectly  "out  of  order."  Therefore  it  was  a 
usurpation  of  my  rights,  when  a  question  of  constitutional  law  was 
turned  into  a  "point  of  order,"  entertained  by  the  Moderator,  and 
sustained  by  the  Presbytery,  so  taking  from  me,  both  my  constitu- 
tional and  parliamentary  rights  to  discuss  my  Preamble  and  Resolu- 
tions on  their  merits,  and  to  adduce  in  their  support  the  "facts" 
which  had  been  introduced  into  the  house  by  the  official  report  of  its 
own  committee. 

But  it  has  been  said,  there  are  such  things  as  "constitutional  rules," 
and  we  have  a  right,  therefore,  to  turn  questions  of  constitutional  law 
into  "rules  of  order."  The  logic  of  this  reasoning  is  as  fallacious  as 
the  intuition  of  the  facts  is  obscure.  No  calculus,  known  to  mathe- 
matics to-day,  is  able  to  fix  the  amount  of  power  necessary  to  draw 
such  an  enormous  conclusion,  and  no  logical  harness,  yet  made,  is 
strong  enough  to. endure  the  strain.  For,  "constitutional  rules" 
relate  to  polity,  and  are  parts  of  the  constitution  itself.  They  are 
actual  amendments  to,  or  interpretations  of,  the  Articles  of  Govern- 
ment and  Discipline,  in  every  case,  however,  "excluding  alteration 
of  the  doctrine  and  fundamental  principles  of  the  Church."  (Moore's 
Digest,  p.  328.)  Proposed  to  all  the  Presbyteries  and  adopted,  upon 
overture,  by  two  thirds  of  them,  they  are  then,  formally,  declared  by 
the  Assembly  to  be  laiv,  and  are  irrepealable,  henceforth,  by  the  As- 
sembly itself  or  by  any  subordinate  court.  They  are  legislative  acts 
of  the  whole  Church.  Presbytery  can  not  make  them,  nor  unmake 
them ;  neither  can  Assembly.  As  part  of  the  constitution,  they 
have  the  whole  force  of  constitutional  law.  These  rules  are  of  the 
nature  of  judicial  order  of  proceeding  definitely  defined,  which,  though 
not  parliamentary  rules  of  order,  are  defined  order  itself.  Clearly,  a 
motion  against  any  of  these  could  not  be  entertained,  for  here  law  and 
order  are  made  identical.     Where  the  constitution  itself,  as  in  judicial 


36 

proces?,  assumes  the  feature  of  a  mandate,  au  express  "shall,"  it  is 
then  settled  order  itself,  and  no  motion  can  be  entertained  against  it, 
making  it  out  of  order.  The  ground  of  refusal  to  entertain  such  mo- 
tion, is  not  that  the  motion  is  unconstitutional,  however  true  that  may 
be-,  but  that  it  is  against  order  itself,  and  no  motion  is  in  order  that  is 
out  of  order. 

Nor  are  our  Rules  of  Order  part  of  our  Constitution.  In  express 
terms  our  Digest  says :  "  The  following  rules,  not  having  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  Presbyteries,  mahe  no  paH  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church."  (Moore's  Digest,  p.  204.)  And  even  if  they  did,  yet, 
such  a  rule  as  the  one  the  Cincinnati  Presbytery  has  legislated  into 
existence,  on  the  basis  of  1834,  has  no  place  in  the  catalogue.  But 
now,  we  have  been  suddenly  presented  with  a  new  rule  of  procedure, 
we  may  call  it  Rule  XLIV,  added  to  the  list,  and  it  will  read  this  way : 
" No  Presbytery  shall  consider  any  motioii,  'preamble  or  resolution,  condemning 
erroneous  opinions  wider  its  jurisdiction  which  injure  the  peace  and  purity  of 
tlie  Church,  unless  after  judicial  process  of  the  author  of  said  opinions.^'  The 
odor  of  it.  Moderator,  savors  very  much  of  an  attack  upon  the  consti- 
tution indeed,  but  then,  you  know,  it  is  only  a  "rxile  of  order!"  I 
admit.  Moderator,  that  under  such  an  enactment,  my  Preamble  and 
Resolutions  would  have  been  out  of  order,  but  I  deny  that  the  Assem- 
bly has  made  such  an  enactment,  or  bound  such  a  rule  upon  the  court. 
Where  is  such  a  rule  to  be  found,  even  in  our  constitutional  rules  ? 
Where  is  the  Presbytery's  right  to  turn  a  question  of  constitutional 
law,  in  face  of  the  binding  decision  of  the  Assembly,  into  a  rule  of 
order?  It  is  pure  legislation,  an  assumption,  by  Presbytery,  of  the 
function  of  the  General  Assembly ;  a  violation  of  the  dearest  and 
most  sacred  rights  of  motion  and  discussion,  guaranteed  to  every 
Presbytery  by  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  Ijy  " '" 
parliamentary  rule.  How  often  must  it  be  repeated  before  we  under- 
stand it,  that  nothing  is  a  "point  of  order"  which  does  not  relate  to 
established  rules  of  order  prescribed  for  procedure  in  business. 

But  now.  Moderator,  granting  that  all  I  have  said  goes  for  nothing; 
admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument^  the  unconstitutionality  of  my  Pre- 
amble and  Resolutions ;  allow  that  the  Presbytery's  construction  of  tiie 
constitution  was  right,  as  against  the  binding  decisions  of  the  General 
Assembly ;  grant  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  non-judicial  power  to 
condemn  error ;  grant  everything  that  the  brethren  opposed  to  my  motion 
maintained,  or  might  maintain,  I  still  deny  that  a  man  is  "  out  of  order" 
simply  because  his  motion  or  preamble  and  resolutions  either  are,  or 
assumed  to  be,  "  unconstitutional."  You  may  lay  them  on  the  table, 
or  vote  them  down,  after  they  have  been  moved,  seconded  and  dis- 


37 

cussed,  even  though  they  declare  that  the  constitution  itself  is  uncon- 
stitutional. But  the  mover  is  "  in  order,"  and  has  both  a  constitutional 
and  a  parliamentary  right  to  be  heard  on  their  merits. 

In  support  of  this  position  I  adduce  the  testimony  of  several  gen- 
tlemen of  eminent  authority  in  parliamentary  experience.  The  first 
I  mention  is  the  Hon.  J.  F.  Follett,  late  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Cincinnati,  O.,  October  9,  187G. 
Hon.  J.  F.  Follett: 

Dear  Sir — The  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  Form  of 
Government,  Chapter  X,  Section  8,  gives  a  Presbytery  the  "power  to 
condemn  erroneous  opinions  that  injure  the  peace  and  purity  of  the 
Church.     Suppose  I  offer  the  following  : 

"  Whereas,  A.  B.  has  taught  and  teaches  so  and  so,  which  is 
"erroneous'"  (here  I  quote  the  proofs  of  error  in  language  of  the 
author),  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  A.  B,  is  in  error  in  said  opinions,  and  is  hereby  en- 
joined not  to  propagate  them. 

I.  Is  this  preamble  and  resolution  "out  of  order"  if  it  is  duly 
moved,  seconded,  and  the  mover  has  the  floor,  and  there  is  no  other 
business  before  the  house  ? 

II.  Suppose  some  one  rises  to  what  he  chooses  to  call  a  "point  of  order," 
viz.:  That  according  to  his  interpretation  of  the  constitution,  the  above 
clause  excludes  the  condemnation  of  error,  except  in  the  abstract,  and 
that  forty  General  Assemblies  have  so  decided,  and  therefore  it  is 
''out  of  order"  even  to  "consider"  the  preamble  and  resolution,  is  the 
the  mover  "out  of  order"  on  that  account? 

Is  any  interpretation  of  the  constitution,  pro  or  con,  to  be  made  a 
parliamentary  rule  for  procedure  in  business?  Admit  that  the  Pre- 
amble and  Resolution  are  against  the  constitution  itself,  most  clearly, 
does  that  make  their  mover  "  oiit  of  order,"  and  close  his  mouth  on  the 
merits  of  the  case? 

Suppose  a  member  of  the  legislature  moves  to  burn  up  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  State,  or  to  secede  from  the  Union,  and  the  motion  is 
seconded,  and  the  mover  has  a  right  to  the  floor,  is  he  "out  of  order" 
because  he  is  unconstitutional?  Is  he  not  entitled  to  speak  to  the  full 
merits  of  the  case,  even  though  the  house  will  vote  down  his  resolutions 
instantly  ? 

I  hold  that  the  "constitution"  is  one  thing  and  "order"  is  another. 
Order  in  a  deliberative  hiAj,  is  conformity  to  a  prescribed  mode  of 
procedure  in  business  and  relates  wholly  to  parliamentary  rule,  while 


38 

constitution  or  organic  law  is  a  wholly  different  thing,  and  no  inter- 
pretation of  it  may  be  made  a  parliamentary  rule  under  which  to 
declare  a  resolution  opposed  to  that  interpretation  as  "  out  of  order," 
if  it  is  duly  seconded  and  the  member  has  a  right  to  the  floor  and  no 
other  business  is  before  the  house?  Please  inform  me,  is  my  view 
right  or  wrong  ?  ^ 

Truly  yours,  etc.,  etc., 


^^  I  have  no  Jiesltation  in  sayitig  your  view  is  right. 

John  F.  Follett." 

1.  Does  the  unconstitutionality  of  a  motion  or  preamble  and  resolu- 
tion make  said  motion  or  preamble  and  resolution,  ipso  facto,  "oat 
of  order  f" 

"  It  does  not. 

J.  F.  Follett." 

2.  Is  an  unconstitutional  motion,  preamble  or  resolution,  if  duly 
seconded,  no  other  business  being  before  the  house,  "in  order,"  and 
debateable  on  its  merits? 

"  It  is.  Very  truly, 

J.  F.  Follett." 

I  also  add  the  following  answer  from  my  respected  friend,  Hon. 
Rufus  King,  President  of  the  late  convention  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
assembled  for  the  revision  of  its  Constitution ; — an  answer  written  to  the 
same  communication  addressed  to  the  Hon.  Mr.  Follett : 

"  Cincinnati,  O.,  October  8,  1876. 
"  My  Deae  Sir — Unless  precluded  by  some  special  rule  of  order,  the 
Presbytery  was  bound  to  entertain  such  a  motion  as  yours.  I  do  not 
see  how  it  can  even  be  questioned.  Nothing  which  has  relation  to  the 
laws,  powers,  or  duties  of  the  body,  can  be  out  of  order,  if  not  expressly 
forbidden  by  the  rules  of  order. 

Yours  very  truly, 

Rufus  King." 

I  add  also  the  following  correspondence  had  with  the  Hon.  Schuyler 
Colfax,  formerly  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  of  the  United  States : 

Cincinnati,  O.,  November  1,  1876. 
Hon.  Schuyler  Colfax  : 

Dear  Sir — Allow  me  to  ask  your  decision,  as  a  parliamentarian, 
upon  the  following  questions :  1.  Is  it  the  province  of  a  presiding 
officer,  or  of  any  deliberative  body,  acting  under  written  parliamentary 


39 

"  Rules  of  Order,"  to  make  this  or  that  assumed  or  real  interpretation 
of  the  Constitution  a  "point  of  order,"  or  a  "rule  of  order,"  when 
said  interpretation  is  no  part  of  the  "Rules  of  Order?"  2.  Does  the 
unconstitutionality  of  a  proposition  make  it,  ipso  facto,  "out  of  order?" 
3.  Is  any  motion.  Preamble,  or  Resolution,  even  if  unconstitutional, 
debateable  on  its  merits,  if  duly  offered  and  seconded,  and  not  excluded 
by  the  specified  class  of  "undebateable  motions"  known  as  such  to 
parliamentarians?     Please  be  so  kind  as  to  give  me  your  opinion. 

Very  truly  yours,  etc.,  etc., 

^  *  '-ic  * 

"  South  Bend,  Ind  ,  November  7,  1876. 
"Dear  Sir — Your  letter  has  just  reached  me.  In  Congress,  the 
presiding  officers  do  7iot  rule  out  questions  on  any  grounds  of  uncon- 
stitutionality. This  practice  is  supposed  to  be  the  true  inference  from 
the  British  rule  laid  down  in  Jefferson's  Manual,  Sec.  35.  "  If  an  amend- 
ment be  proposed  inconsistent  with  one  already  agreed  to,  it  is  fit  ground 
for  its  rejection  by  the  House;  but  it  is  not  within  the  competence 
of  the  speaker  to  suppress  it,  as  if  it  were  against  order ;  for  were 
he  permitted  to  draw  questions  of  consistence  within  the  vortex  of  order, 
he  might  usurp  a  negative  on  important  modifications  and  suppress 
instead  of  subserve  the  legislative  will." 

Respectfully  yours, 

Schuyler  Colfax.'' 

lakoaddthefollowingcorrespondence  with  the  Hon.  Ed  ward  McPher- 
son,  for  many  years- Clerk  of  the  National  House  of  Representatives 
and  a  universal  authority  on  parliamentary  law  and  precedent  through- 
out the  country. 

Cincinnati,  O.,  October  9,  1876. 
Hon.  Edward  McPherson: 

Dear  Sir — Our  Form  of  Government,  Chap.  X,  Sec.  8,  with  which 
you  are  well  acquainted,  gives  Presbytery  the  "power,"  among  other 
things,  "  to  condemn  erroneous  opinions  which  injure  the  purity  or 
peace  of  the  Church."  This  is  a  function  of  Episcopal  power,  as  I 
take  it,  discriminated  from  the  function  of  Judicial  power,  which  is 
involved  in  the  previous  clause,  viz.,  of  "judging  ministers."  My 
question  is  this,  would  a  Preamble  or,  in  other  words,  a  proposition, 
introduced  into  Presbytery,  reciting  erroneous  doctrines  or  views 
propagated  by  any  of  its  ministers,  with  the  necessary  proofs  therefor, 
taken  from  official  documents  on  the  table,  or  otherwise,  and  an 
appended  Resolution  condemning  the  error  and  enjoining  its  new 
propagation,  be  "out  of  order"  or  "unconstitutional?"  And  would 
an  amendment,  unconstitutional  in  itself,  be  "out  of  order"  on  that 
ground?  To  what  extent  does  the  jurisdiction  of  a  parliamentary 
ofiicer  go?  May  any  proposition  or  motion  duly  made  and  seconded 
be  debated  on  its  merits,  if  Avithin  the  rules  as  to  debateable  motions? 
A  brief  answer  to  these  interrogations  will  place  me  under  obligations 
to  your  kindness. 

Very  sincerely  yours,  etc., 

*  H^  ^ 


40 

"  Gettysburg,  Pa.,  Nov.  10,  1876. 
"  Dear  Sir — I  have  been  from  home  for  several  weeks  and  your 
letter  of  the  9th  October  did  not  reach  me  till  after  the  19th. 

"Please  excuse  the  delay  of  this  reply.  I  believe  I  understand 
your  point. 

"As  to  the  amendment.  An  amendment  to  a  pending  proposition, 
germane  to  it,  is  in  order,  without  any  regard  to  the  alleged  unconsti- 
tutionality. A  presiding  officer  never  undertakes  to  pass  upon  the 
effect  of  an  amendment.  His  jurisdiction  is  wholly  confined  to  the  par- 
liamentery  questions  of  germaneness,  degree,  etc. 

"As  to  the  proposition.     Any  proposition  duly  oflTered  and  properly 
pending  is  subject  to  debate  upon  its  merits,  within  the  rules,  as  well 
if  it  be  clearly  unconstitutional,  or  if  only  presumably  so.     To  deny 
this  would  be  seriously  to  fetter  all  deliberative  proceedings. 
With  great  respect. 

Truly  yours, 

Edward  McPherson."* 

Fortified  by  such  testimony  as  the  above,  I  maintain,  therefore,  (1.) 
That  by  ''order"''  is  meant  conformity  to  prescribed  ''rules  of  oi'der'" 
for  procedure  in  business  ;  (2.;  That  nothing  is  a  "'point  of  order  "'  which 
does  not  relate  to  these  rules ;  (3.)  That  our  parliamentary  rules  of  order 
are  no  part  of  our  constitution ;  (4.)  That  constitutional  rules  are  no  part 
of  the  rules  of  order ;  (5.)  That  Presbytery  had  no  right  to  interpret 
the  constitfltion,  bind  its  interpretation  upon  the  court,  and  turn  it 
into  a  rule  of  order  ;  (6.)  That  Presbytery  had  no  right  to  legislate  a 
new  rule  into  existence  conflicting  with  the  binding  decision  of  the 
Assembly;  (7.)  That  a  man  is  t^lways  "  in  order"  when  he  conforms 
to  the  rules  of  order,  and  only  "out  of  order"  when  he  departs  from 
the  same;  (8.)  That  a  man  may  be  perfectly  "in  order"  when  his 
motion  is  utterly  zwiconstitutional,  and  his  motion  may  be  perfectly 
co?i,stitutional,  when  the  man  himself  is  utterly  "  out  of  order." 

I  need  say  no  more  on  this  first  point  of  complaint.  I  complain  that 
the  dearest  right  of  a  Presbyterian  minister,  protected  by  a  true  con- 
struction of  the  constitution  and  by  parliamentary  rules,  to  both 
which  I  conformed,  were  taken  from  me,  on  the  floor  of  the  Presby- 
tery, by  an  arbitrary  decision  of  that  body,  and  this  action  I  submit 
to  the  judgment  of  the  Synod. 

II.  The  second  point  of  Com^aint  is  against  the  Presbytery's  action, 
in  accepting,  and  thereby  making  official  documents  of,  the  Special 
Report  and  collaterals  of  the  Committee  of  Investigation  in  the  case  of 

*  The  communications  from  Mr.  Colfivx  and  Mr.  McPherson  I  did  not  receive 
till  after  the  meeting  of  Synod.  I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  insert  them  in  the 
speech.  T.  H.  S. 


41 

Mr.  McCiine,  "  ivithout  any  action  ivhatever  to  amend  or  to  rectify  statements, 
judgments,  and  personalities  therein  contained,  at  variance  ivlth  Righteous- 
ness and  Truth."  This,  of  course,  relates  wholly  to  myself  and  the  Pres- 
bytery. I  complain  of  no  statements,  judgments,  or  personalities,  in 
reference  to  any  one  else. 

(1.)  The  first  reason  in  support  of  this  second  point  of  Complaint  is, 
"That  the  Report  opens  with,  and  its  recommendations  rest  upon, 
statements  contrary  to  truth.'" 

(a.)  It  says,  my  Resolution,  offered  at  Glendale,  and  printed  in  my 
pamphlet,  was  a  "Resolution  censuring  Mr.  McCune."  This  is  not 
true.  The  Resolution  simply  asked  Presbytery  to  "reject  the  princi- 
ples" Mr.  McCune  has  advocated,  and  to  say  that  the  ''  course  pursued" 
is  in  ^'contravention"  of  our  law,  and  ^^  inconsisteyit"  with  membership 
in  our  body.  It  relates  wholly  to  things,  proper  to  be  acted  upon  by 
the  episcopal  power  of  the  body.  It  proposes  no  "  censure "  of  the 
person,  not  even  an  admonition.  It  implies  no  censure  whatever.  It 
is  just  what  our  Church  has  done  scores  of  times,  without  censure, 
and  repeats  every  time  upon  "review  and  control"  of  Records,  and 
in  public  deliverances  whenever  necessary. 

(6.)  It  says  my  pamphlet  made  "  light  of  the  Committee  and  its 
work."  In  no  paragraph,  sentence,  or  clause  of  my  pamphlet,  can  a 
syllable  be  found  authenticating  such  a  charge,  or  reflecting  in  the 
slightest  degree  upon  the  "  the  Committee  and  its  ivork."  The  statement 
is  wholly  gratuitous. 

(c.)  It  says,  that  my  pamphlet  "contains  the  staple  and  axdhority  fw 
the  rumors  existing  against  Mr.  McCune.'^  This  also  is  untrue.  My 
pamphlet  was  itself  the  product  of  "rumors,''  and  of  various  publica- 
tions, as  also  of  previous  discussions,  long  before  the  pamphlet  Was 
born  ;  and  this  was  well  known  to  the  Committee.  It  was  neither  the 
staple,  nor  the  authority,  ^^for  the  rumors  existing,"  at  the  time  of  its 
publication,  nor  at  the  time  of  Presbytery's  appointment  of  its  Com- 
mittee. And  none  knew  this  better  than  the  draftsman  of  the  Report, 
Dr.  J.  G.  Montfort.  The  pamphlet  was  published  about  two  weeks 
after  the  Presbytery  arose  at  Griendale,  April  13,  1876.  Now  then. 
Moderator,  I  affirm  that  Mr.  McCune's  book  on  "  Organic  Union  "  was 
published  in  1866,  and  has  since  been  fully  circulated.  The  "  Chris- 
tian Unity,"  edited  by  Mr.  McCune,  appeared  in  November,  1873. 
Dr.  Monfort's  adverse  criticism  upon  the  principles  of  that  paper  ap- 
peared in  the  same  month,  saying :  "It  will  be  seen  that  Bro. 
McCune  aims  at  a  great  change  in  the  Churches."  In  August,  1875, 
this  same  widely-circulated  paper  contained  an  editorial  by  the  drawer 
of  the  report.     He  says,  in   that  editorial,  among  other  things:  "  If 


42 

these  brethren  are  for  organization  and  association,  or  are  already  or- 
ganized and  associated,  the  external  bond  of  union  being  the  conven- 
tion or  association  which  met  in  New  York  in  1873,  in  Cincinnati  in 
1874,  and  in  Suffolk,  Va.,  in  1875,  tve  are  at  a  loss  to  understaiid  how 
Mr.  McCune  or  Mr.  Mellish  can  be  willing  to  maintain  connection 
with  the  Presbyterian  or  Baptist  Church.  We  should  suppose  that 
each  would  pass  at  once  for  an  old  organization  that  is  unauthorized 
and  extra-scriptural  to  a  new  one  on  a  New  Testament  Basis." 
"The  Address  to  all  Christian  Ministers  and  Churches  in  North 
America"  was  issued  in  1874.  A  long  debate  between  Mr.  McCune 
and  the  Christian  Standard  occurred  in  1875  and  the  earlier  part  of 
1876.  The  L.  and  M.  L.  "Declaration  and  Basis,"  and  the  Council 
were  in  the  latter  part  of  1875;  and  the  Herald  and  Presbyter 
published  the  proceedings,  as  did  other  papers.  Public  discussions  by 
Messrs.  McCune,  Morris,  Skinner,  and  Layman,  besides,  occurred  in 
the  Cincinnati  Gazette,  Commercial,  and  Times,  also  discussions  in  the 
Christian  Observer,  the  United  Presbyterian,  Interior,  the  Presbyterian, 
the  Journal  and  Messenger,  the  North-western  Christian  Advocate, 
and  other  papers,  all  which  I  present  as  evidence  for  the  point  I  make, 
before  ever  the  Glendale  Presbytery  met,  or  my  pamphlet  saw  the 
light.  An  interlocutory  meeting  had  even  been  proposed  in  reference 
to  this  matter.  The  opening  sentences  of  my  pamphlet  are  themselves 
a  refutation  of  the  Committee's  statement.  The  resolution  of  the 
Presbytery  under  which  the  Committee  was  appointed,  and  beginning 
thus,  "  Wheras,  for  some  time  pad  there  have  been  current  rumors,"  etc., 
— a  form  of  expression  penned  by  the  drawer  of  the  report  himself, — 
seals  the  allegation  of  the  Committee  as  untrue.  With  what  con- 
science, then,  or  with  what  sense  of  justice  or  of  truth,  could  the 
drawer  of  the  report  and  the  Committee  base  their  report  upon  the 
false  statement  that  my*pamphlet  was  the  "staple  and  authority  for 
the  rumors  existing,"  in  "timspast,"  and  into  which  they  were  appointed 
to  inquire,  before  the  pamphlet  was  born  ?  On  this  I  need  say  no  more, 
except  that  nothing  could  be  more  unjust  or  untrue  than  the  attempt 
to  make  me  the  author  of  Common  Fame;  a  device  contrived  (1), 
to  cut  away  any  Presbyterial  action  on  the  ground  of  Common  Fame 
in  the  case,  and  (2)  to  lay  the  ground  that  I  be  required  to  become  a 
responsible  prosecutor.  Thus  does  the  report  of  the  Committee  open 
with,  and  its  recommendations  rest  upon,  three  unfounded  statements. 
(2.)  The  second  reason  in  support  of  the  second  point  of  Complaint 
is,  that  this  accepted  report  steps  out  of  its  way  to  raise  a  new  case, 
instead  of  confining  itself  to  the  terms  of  the  resolution  under  which 
the  Committee  was  appointed."     This  policy,  in  the  light  of  the  pre- 


43 

ceding  untruthfulness,  was  evidently  to  ray  damage  before  the  public 
and  was  beyond  the  province  of  the  Committee.  Tiie  terms  of  that 
resolution  were,  to  have  a  ''full  conference  with  Mr.  McCune," 
and  to  inquire  into  all  the  ''facts"  bearing  on  the  "case""  of  Mr. 
McCune,  and  report  to  Presbytery.  Under  these  instructions  the 
Committee  assumes  to  pronounce  upon  me  personally  and  upon  the 
publication  of  ray  pamphlets,  written  in  defense  of  ray  rights  as  a 
Presbyter,  and  of  the  faith  and  order  of  the  Church,  a  condemnatory 
judgment.  It  recommends  that  I  be  dealt  with  for  publishing  the 
pamphlet.  My  mouth  having  been  closed  in  the  Glendale  Presby- 
tery, I  am  to  be  dealt  with  for  opening  it  outside  of  the  Presbytery, 
and  then  have  it  closed  again  on  the  merits  of  the  case  when  the  Pres-  - 
bytery  met  thereafter.  It  recommends  that  Presbytery  take  action 
to  the  effect  that  I  either  "  prove  or  retract"  certain  picked  state- 
ments by  Mr.  McCune,  and  that  I  "ought''  so  to  do,  in  default  of 
which,  it  suggests  a  prosecution  for  "slander.''  Was  this,  Moderator, 
the  work  the  Committee  was  sent  to  do  under  the  terms  of  the  reso- 
lution, recommending  no  action  whatever  in  the  case  it  was  appointed 
to  examine,  and  the  material  "facts"  of  which  case  it  was  required  to 
present  to  the  Presbytery.  It  turned  aside  to  do  as  I  have  intimated. 
I  submit  that  this  was  an  unlawful  exercise  of  the  functions  of  the 
Committee,  in  the  interest  of  a  personal  attack  upon  myself.  And 
yet  Presbytery  accepted  all  this  without  a  word  of  rebuke  or  official 
correction. 

(3.)  The  third  reason  in  support  of  the  second  point  of  Complaint  is, 
"That  it  implies  a  censure  on  the  undersigned  and  recommends  the 
Presbytery  to  pass  a  judgment  which  also  implies  a  censure."  Cen- 
sure for  publication,  censure  in  case  I  declined  to  "  prove  or  retract." 
It  says  I  "ought"  to  do  one  or  the  other,  that  is,  I  am  under  moral 
obligation  to  do  this,  and  in  case  I  do  not,  then  a  prosecution  for 
"slander"  may  be  the  next  appropriate  step!  What  is  all  this,  Mode- 
rator, but  an  implied  "censure"  of  me  personally?  All  this,  I  affirm, 
was  beyond  the  province  of  the  Committee  under  the  terms  of  its 
instructions  ;  and  against  this  unprecedented  liberty  I  complain,  as  also 
against  the  formal  acceptance  of  such  a  report,  giving  it  the  sanction  of 
an  official  document.  I  hold  as  firmly  as  any  man  can,  that  a  public 
slanderer  "  ought"  to  prove  or  retract,  and  that  no  apologies  short  of 
this  "ought"  to  be  accepted.  Ministerial  character  is  too  precious  to 
be  trifled  with. 

(4.)  The  fourth  reason  in  support  of  the  second  point  of  Complaint 
is,  "  That  part  of  the  Collaterals  of  the  Report  indulge  in  gross  person- 
alities against  the  undersigned,  which  would  not  be  tolerated  for  one 


44 

moment  in  debate,  and  ouglit  not  to  be  tolerated  in  an  official  docu- 
ment." 

The  Collaterals  are  specified  by  the  Committee  in  their  Special  Re- 
port, and  are  expressly  said  by  them  to  be  a  '-part  of  our  report." 
What  they  contain  was  well  known  to  Dr.  Monfort,  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee,  and  to  the  Committee  itself.  I  think  it  will  be  difficult 
for  any  one  to  show  wherein  I  personally  have  violated  the  first  prin- 
ciples of  Christian  courtesy  or  gentlemanly  respect,  by  the  use  of 
opprobious  and  vituperative  epithets  against  any  one.  I  have  sought 
simply  to  defend  the  faith  and  order  of  my  Church,  in  a  manly  and 
Christian  way.  But  the  Report  of  the  Committee  has  introduced  into 
the  Presbytery  an  array  of  gross  personalities,  the  parallel  to  which 
can  not  be  found  in  any  official  document,  secular  or  political,  in  the 
country.  Collateral  No.  1,  p.  5,  "violent,  unlawful  and  slanderous 
assault;"  "attacked  and  villified,"  p.  6  ;  "  unrighteous  attempt,"  p.  6  ; 
'•proposed  to  reach  this  high-handed  and  tyrannical  result,"  p.  7; 
"  assailing  me  with  a  great  mass  of  quotations  of  garbled  phrases," 
p.  7;  "  shameful  unfairness,"  p.  7  ;  "  flagrantly  unjust,"  "  slanderous," 
"  defiant,"  "disrespectful  to  the  lawful  jurisdiction  of  the  Presbytery," 
"frantic  outcry,"  p.  8;  "  slanderous  charges,"  "crying  injustice,"  p. 
10;  "unprecedented  in  the  history  of  slander,"  p.  5.  Collateral  No. 
4,  "violent,  unlawful  and  contumacious  assault,"  p.  1;  "recklessly 
and  officiously  asserts,"  p.  5;  "defamatory  pamphlet,"  "tyrannical 
and  false  assumption,"  p.  5  Collateral  No.  5,  "untrue  and  slander- 
ous statements,"  p.  3;  "defamer,"  "shamefully  untrue  statements," 
p.  4;  "shameful  and  outrageous  wrong,"  p.  12;  "violently  contuma- 
cious and  defamatory  statements,"  p.  26. 

Moderator,  I  blush  for  my  Church.  I  blush  for  the  degeneracy  of 
manners  that  prevails  in  our  midst,  and  for  that  demoralization  of 
Christian  sentiment  and  propriety  which  could  allow  our  ears  to  be 
shocked  by  such  things  in  a  court  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  hang 
my  head  in  shame.  I  complain  righteously  to  this  body.  Personalities, 
sir,  are  the  order  of  the  day,  and  it  is  time  that  the  Church  of  Christ 
set  its  face  like  a  flint  against  the  enormity.  It  pleased  my  ear,  I  must 
say  it  in  justice  to  some  of  my  brethren,  to  hear  their  expressions  of 
indignation  at  the  character  of  the  Report,  styling  it  "  outrageous," 
"  horrid,"  and  "  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  Church."  But  that 
the  Presbytery  itself,  under  the  lead  of  those  who  controlled  it, 
should  tolerate  and  accept  such  a  Report  without  rebuke,  tells  its  own 
story. 

III.  The  third  point  o?  Complaint  is  against  the  action  of  Presby- 
tery, in  "adopting  an  answer  to  the  protest  of  the  undersigned,  Sep- 


45 
f 

teinber  15th,  1876,   Mt.   Auburn,  without  rectifying  its  erroneous  state- 
ments and  the  false  impression  it  is  calculated  to  make.'" 

(1.)  My  first  reason  in  support  of  this  third  point  of  Complaint  is, 
"That  said  answer  does  not  accurately  represent  the  facts  of  the  ease:' 
My  second  reason  in  support  of  the  third  point  is,  that  "it  represents 
the  undersigned  as  being  out  of  order  and  furnishing  reasonable  grounds 
for  the  annoyances  and  unlawful  interruptions  under  which  he  was 
forced  to  retire  from  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery."  My  third  reason 
is,  "  that  no  ivithdraival  of  the  protest  for  alteration,  on  account  of  mis- 
representation in  the  answer,  could  make  the  protest  "  more  agree- 
able '•  to  the  "views"  of  the  undersigned."  I  take  these  three  reasons 
together,  and  for  the  first  two  of  them  adduce  the  public  reports  of 
the  occurrences  at  Mt.  Auburn,  certified  to,  as  correct  reports,  by  the 
gentlemen  of  the  press  who  made  them.  I  also  present  my  Protest 
and  the  Answer  of  the  Presbytery  to  the  same.  (Here  read  the 
Gazette  and  Commercial  reports.) 

Now,  Moderator,  I  make  the  following  points:    (1.)  I  was  ruled  as 
ill  order,  by  the  Chair,  when  reading  the  Special  Report  of  the  Inves- 
tigating Committee.     (2.)  I  never  traversed  that  report  with  "  unlim- 
ited "  range,  as  the  protest  insinuates.      I  confined  myself,  in  the 
first  place,  strictly  to  the  Sjjecial  Report ;   and  in  the  second  place, 
closely  to  one  paragraph  of  that  report,  printed  as  No.  2  in  the  Ga- 
zette, reading  it  from  the  print.     I  had  read  precisely  one  inch   and 
three  quarters  by  actual  measurement,  during  over  an    hour's  patient 
and  protracted  eflx)rt  to  go  on  under  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator.     I 
sought  to  read  nothing  else,  and  I  will  read  now  just  what  I  read  then. 
(Here  read.)     This  is  all,' sir.     There  is  nothing  else  in  that  report 
that  touched  the  question  in  hand.     It  is  therefore  untrue  that  I  was 
indulging  in  "unlimited  reading,"'  or  that  the  Moderator  called  me 
to  order  on  that  account.     (3.)  All  Mr.  McCune's  objections  and  in- 
terruptions were  directly  to  the  point,  that  I  had  no  right  to  read  that 
part  of  the  report  which  the  Moderator  ruled  I  had  a  right  to  read,  in 
order  to  show  that  the  Committee  was  as  much  bound  to  prosecute 
Mr.  McCune  as  I  was.     (4.)  I  was  never  called  to  order  once  by  the 
Moderator,  or  as  ruled  out  of  order.    The  Moderator's  remarks,  that  I 
would^  confine  myself  to  the  question  and  the   paper,  were  remarks 
made  in  the  midst  of  boundless  confusion,  not  as  calls  of  myself  to  order, 
but  as  simple  repetitions  and  assurances  to  the  court  that,  in  what  I 
should  say  and  read,  I  must  confine  myself  to  the  paper  and  to  the  ques- 
tion, both  which  I  did,  not  that  I  had  transgressed  in  a  single  instance. 
(5.)  The  inch  and  three  quarters  that  I  did  read  was  germane  to  the 
matters  involved  in  the  motion  under  discussion,  as  the  whole  para- 


46 

gx'aph  was,  and  this  I  svas  proceeding  to  show,  but  was  prevented  by 
persistent  interruptions,  which  were  not  restrained.  They  coincided  with 
"the  particular  matters"  complained  of,  but  I  was  not  allowed  to  go  on 
and  show  this  fact.  (6.)  The  drawer  of  the  Keport  affirmed  to  me  per- 
sonally, in  my  study,  after  the  Presbytery  was  over,  that  I  had  a  perfect 
right  to  read  that  whole  paragraph,  which  is  six  inches  long  in  print,  and 
that  I  ought  to  have  been  allowed  a  still  larger  range.  It  is  not  true, 
therefore,  as  I  have  shown,  that  I  sought  an  "  unlimited  "  range,  or  that 
I  was  out  of  order,  or  that  I  wandered  from  the  question,  or  that  I  did 
anything  not  pertinent  to  the  discussion,  or  that  I  trespassed  the  ruling  of 
the  Chair,  or  that  my  conduct  gave  any  just  ground  for  the  unlawful  in- 
terruptions to  which  I  was  subjected,  or  that  in  nearly  or  quite  every 
instance,  the  Moderator  found  it  necessary  to  warn  me  to  keep  within 
his  ruling,  all  which  the  answer  to  the  protest  alleges  as  true,  and  the 
contrary  of  which  I  allege.  The  simple  fact  is  this,  the  determination 
on  the  part  of  several  individuals  was,  that  that  part  of  the  Commit- 
tee's report  which  I  was  reading  should  not  be  read  and  I  was  forced 
to  retire,  under  protest  that  I  was  not  protected  in  my  rights.  And 
now,  in  face  of  such  allegations  as  the  above,  in  the  answer  to  the 
protest,  it  must  be  evident  to  every  one,  that  no  ivithdraival  of  my  pro- 
test by  myself,  could  make  it  "more  agreeable"'  to  my  "  views"  or  to 
the  facts  in  the  case,  or  to  my  vindication  against  the  false  impeach- 
ments of  the  answer,  by  any  alteration  that  I  might  make,  and  there- 
fore my  only  resort  is,  to  complain  to  this  body  against  the  injustice 
that  has  been  done. 

And  thus  do  I  sum  up  the  whole  case  of  which  I  complain  :  A  case 
of  grievous  injustice  against  a  man  who  has  simply  sought  to  draw  the 
notice  of  his  Presbytery,  in  these  days  of  demoralization  in  this  region, 
to  endangering  error  and  practice,  under  the  disguise  of  a  false 
unionism  and  liberalism,  which  repels  the  distinctive  tenets  of  our 
creed,  and  the  enforcement  of  denominational  law.  Injustice  in  vio- 
lation of  my  'constitutional  and  parliamentary  rights,  both  which  have 
been  twice  wrested  from  me  on  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery,  bound  to 
protect  me  in  the  same  ;  injustice  in  accepting  the  Committee's  Re- 
port, which  opens  with,  and  rests  upon,  three  separate  statements  of 
untruth ;  injustice  in  seeking  to  make  m6  the  author  of  the  "  rumors  " 
which,  "in  time  past,"  had  spread  over  the  country,  before  even  my 
pamphlet  was  born  ;  injustice  in  turning  aside  to  institute  a  new  case, 
and  pronounce  on  the  basis  of  those  untruths  a  censuring  judgment 
against  me  personally,  as  also  against  the  public  defense  of  my  rights 
as  a  Presbyter,  and  of  the  faith  and  order  of  the  Presbyterian  Church ; 
injustice   in   asserting  that  I  was  under  moral  obligation  either  to 


47 

"  prove  or  retract ; "  injustice  in  recommending  a  judicial  investigation 
of  certain  selected  statements,  on  Mr,  McCune's  representation  alone, 
as  if  my  quotations  or  argument  were  false  on  that  account;  injustice 
for  suggesting  a  prosecution  for  "  slander"  in  case  I  declined  to  accede 
to  the  imputation  in  the  judgment,  that  I  ought  to  "  prove  or  retract;" 
injustice  in  accepting  collaterals  to  the  report,  and  making  them  offi- 
cial documents,  when  they  abounded  in  gross  personalities  and  multi- 
plied vituperative  epithets,  not  tolerated  even  in  the  councils  of  uncon- 
verted men ;  injustice  in  representing  me  as  a  persistent  breaker  of 
the  order  of  my  Presbytery,  a  constant  trespasser  upon  the  ruling  of 
the  Chair,  and  the  author  of  the  very  disorder  and  confusion  under 
which  1  was  forced  to  retire  from  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery ;  a 
twelve-fold  injustice,  repeated,  protracted,  accumulated,  and  which  I 
here  bring  and  lay  before  the  bar  of  this  Synod,  and  upon  which  I 
ask  the  judgment  of  my  brethren,  and  all  this  injustice,  oppression 
and  wrong,  in  an  effort  to  avoid  and  delay  the  bounden  duty  of  the 
Presbytery,  to  attend  to  the  disorders  which,  by  common  fame,  had 
been  circulated  through  the  country. 

But,  Moderator,  high  over  all  personal  injustice  and  wrong,  looms 
the  great  question  of  the  Episcopal  or  Paternal  Power  of  the  Presby- 
tery to  condemn  error  in  doctrine  and  practice,  apart  from  judicial 
process,  and  so  conserve  the  faith  and  order  of  the  Church.  This 
power,  expressly  vested  in  the  Presbytery,  and  in  all  our  courts,  by 
Christ,  the  Head  of  the  Cliurch,  and  engraved  in  the  constitution 
itself,  Cincinnati  Presbytery  has  repudiated.  It  is  a  dangerous  re- 
lapse. To  the  Presbyterian  Church,  to-day,  as  ever,  belongs  the 
whole  power  of  the  apostolic  Church,  save  its  miraculous  and  extra- 
ordinary to  oversee  and  govern  the  flock  of  Grod,  a  plenary  power  ad- 
ministered in  fidelity  centuries  before  our  forms  of  "actual  process'' 
were  recorded.  To  each  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  belongs 
the  whole  ordinary  power  of  the  apostles,  to  watch,  govern  and  direct, 
to  reprove,  rebuke  and  exhort  with  all,  long  suffering  and  doctrine, 
apart  from  judicial  forms.  Who  will  say  that  the  Presbytery  has  not 
the  inherent  power  which  belongs  inherently  to  each  minister  and 
elder  who  composes  it?  Sir,  it  is  more  than  a  fallacy  to  say  that  the 
doctrine  and  order  of  the  house  of  God  can  not  be  protected  under 
our  constitution,  except  by  forensic  process.  The  proph^ets  contradict 
it.  The  New  Testament  contradicts  it.  The  apostolic  example  con- 
tradicts it.  The  practice  of  the  Church  in  every  age  contradicts  it. 
Every  apostolic  epistle  is  a  loud  protest  against  it.  The  history 
of  the  Presbyterian,  and  every  other  Evangelical  Church  in  Chris- 
tendom,   contradicts   it.      And   woe  to   the   Church   of  Christ,    the 


48 

day  when  she  puts  herself  at  the  mercy  of  every  tenacious  inventor  of 
doctrine,  or  every  reviver  of  heresies  exploded  a  thousand  times,  who 
makes  use  of  her  standards  to  shackle  her  freedom,  and  dares  her  to 
move  one  step  in  vindication  of  her  creed,  unless  at  the  expense  of 
perpetual  judicial  war.  Sir,  my  heart  and  my  head  alike  are  in  this 
gi-eat  matter ;  I  want  to  save  the  anchor.  I  would  have  my  brethren 
pause,  in  this  our  great  Church,  whose  limits  extend  so  wide,  and  re- 
member that  maxim  consecrated  by  so  much  illustration  :   "  times  of 

UNION    ARE   TIMES   OF   PERIL   FOR   THE   TRUTH."       Aud    I   WOuld    have 

them  consider,  too,  the  significance  of  tliat  other  maxim,  printed  so 
clearly  and  legibly  on  the  page  of  church  history,  viz.:  "  That  every 
schismatic  demands  a  trial ! "  But,  Moderator,  if  the  genius  of  our 
constitution  is  eminent  in  anything,  it  is  in  this,  that  the  mission,  of, 
the  Church  is  to  bear  testimony  to  the  truth  of  Christ,  and  that  it  is 
the  bounden  duty  of  the  Presbytery,  apart  from  forensic  forms,  to 
condemn  errors  in  doctrine  and  practice,  under  its  own  jurisdiction, 
which  injure  the  unity,  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church.  The  failure 
to  do  this  was  the  source  of  either  increasing  corruption  on  the  one 
hand,  by  reason  of  neglect,  or  of  perpetual  war  on  the  other,  by  rea- 
son of  effort  herein.  First  and  last,  it  is  the  "  heavenly  doctrine"  and 
"  heavenly  order"  we  prize  above  all.  Condemn  the  error  in  doctrine 
and  the  irregularity  in  practice  by  the  episcopal  power  vested  by 
Christ  in  the  ministry  of  His  Church.  Rebuke  and  exhort,  admonish 
and  warn.  Enjobi  all  not  to  propagate  what  is  fatal  to  truth  and 
order.  If  contumacy  follows,  the  remedy  is  at  hand,  without  years  of 
contention,  agony,  resistance,  and  regret. 

Moderator  and  brethren,  I  tliank  you ;  I  feel  I  have  discharged  a 
sacred  duty  to  God,  to  my  Church,  to  Christ,  to  you,  in  bringing  this 
matter  before  you.  My  conscience  is  at  rest.  My  heart  beats  warm 
in  hope  that  God  will  bring  good  out  of  this  contest.  Were  it  in  my 
hand  to  do  it,  I  would  arrest  every  unnecessary  judicial  process  for 
false  doctrine,  everywhere,-  and  I  would  call  upon  every  court  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  to  stand  to  its  responsibility  in  the  exercise  of  legitimate 
episcopal  power,  condemning  erroneous  opinions  and  pi-actices,  so  pre- 
serving to  the  Church  her  noble  polity  and  creed,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  her  unity,  purity  and  peace. 


PROTEST. 

'^  To  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati: 

"Dear  Brethren — The  undersigned  hereby  protests  against  the 
action  of  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati,  taken  at  its  annual  session,  October 
23,  1876,  in  adopting  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions,  to  wit : 


49 

"  Whereas,  The  issuing  of  tlie  complaint  of  Dr.  Skinner,  a.«  rorora- 
mended  by  the  Judicial  Committee,  may  prejudice  the  ease  now  known 
as  the  McCunecase,  at  present  pending  beiore  the  Cincinnati  Presby- 
tery; therefore, 

"  Eesolved,  That  the  consiafraiion  of  the  report  of  the  Judicial 
Committee  upon  the  said  coniphiint  of  Dr.  Skinner,  be  and  is  hereby 
podponed  until  the  issue  of  the  case  of  Mr.  McCune  by  said  Presbytery." 

My  reasons  for  this  protest,  are  : 

"1.  Because  my  rights  to  a  present  hearing  upon  the  merits  of  my 
particular  case,  which  I  have  closely  and  carefully  discriminated  fron^ 
any  possible  relation  to  the  possible  case  of  Mr.  McCune,  not  yet 
framed,  and  belonging  to  another  court,  is  guaranteed  to  me  by  the 
provisions  of  the  constitution,  all  the  conditions  necessary  as  to  this 
having  been  by  me  fulfilled. 

"2.  Because  theargument  of  the  Preamble,  that  the  present  hearing  of 
my  complaint  in  this  court,  utterly  distinct  from  a  case  not  yet  framed, 
noi-  presented  to  another  and  lower  court,  would  be  just  as  good  in  the 
lower  court  against  the  hearing  of  Mr.  McCune's  case,  when  it  shall 
be  presented,  if  any  such  connexion  exists  between  them  as  the 
Preamble  assumes.  Each  case  must  stand  upon  its  own  merits,  and 
each  court  must  judge  for  itself. 

"3.  Becauee  the  Synod  had  no  official  knowledge  of  my  complaint, 
while  its  character  was  misrepresented  by  individuals,  the  complaint 
itself  never  having  been  so  much  as  read,  and  equally,  has  no  official 
knowledge  of  the  case,  yet  to  be,  of  Mr.  McCune.  The  Judicial 
Committee,  in  neither  of  its  reports,  either  described  my  complaint,  or 
made  a  solitary  quotation  from  it. 

"4.  Because  the  Judicial  Committee  had  unanimously  reported  that 
my  complaint  was  'in  order,'  and  had  been  regularly  conducted,  and 
recommended  that  it  be  taken  up  by  the  Synod,  and  the  Synod  voted 
to  take  up  my  complaint. 

"5.  Because  even  a  refusal  to  consider  the  Judicial  Committee's 
'report,'  as  the  resolution  has  it,  and  which  declared  that  my  complaint 
was  *  in  order,'  is  not  only  a  refusal  by  the  Synod  to  hear  now  my 
complaint,  and  to  which  hearing  I  have  a  perfect  right,  but  is  a  refusal 
to  decide,  even  now,  ivhether  there  is  any  complaint  at  all  by  me  regnlarhj 
in  order  before  this  body,  and  entitled  now  to  be  heard.  It  was  a  practical 
ejection  of  my  complaint  from  the  Synod. 

"  6.  Because  it  is  a  repetition,  now  the  third  time  during  six  months, 
of  the  very  thing  of  which  I  complain  to  this  body  as  previously  twice 
practiced  upon  me  in  the  court  below,  viz:  The  setting  aside  of  my 
present  constitutional  rights  by  the  exercise  of  an  assumed  discretion- 
ary power,  excluded  by  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  itself  in  all 
cases  where  such  rights  are  involved. 

''  For  these  reasons  I  repectfully  protest,  and  give  notice  of  com- 
plaint to  the  General  Assembly. 

"Yours  fraternally, 

"Thomas  H.  Skinner." 
"Lebanon,  O.,  Oct.  24,  1876." 


50 


NOTICE    OF   COMPLAINT    TO   THE    GENERAL    ASSEMBLY. 

"  To  tli3  Moderator  of  the  Sijiiod  of  Cincinnati : 

"  The  undersigned  hereby  respectfully  gives  notice  of  his  complaint 
to  the  General  Assembly,  against  the  following  action  of  the  Synod  of 
Cincinnati,  October  23,  1876,  to  wit : 

"  '  Whereas,  The  issuing  of  the  complaint  of  Dr.  Skinner,  as  recom- 
mended by  the  Judicial  Committee,  may  prejudice  the  case,  now  known 
as  the  McCune  case,  at  present  pending  before  the  Cincinnati  Pres- 
bytery; therefore, 

"  '  Besolved,  That  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  Judicial 
Committee  upon  the  said  complaint  of  Dr.  Skinner  be,  and  hereby  is, 
postponed  until  the  issue  of  the  case  of  Mr.  McCune  by  said  Presbytery.' 

"  My  reasons  for  this  complaint  are  : 

"  First,  Because  the  above  action  excluded  the  undersigned  from 
a  hearing  on  his  complaint  to  which  he  was  entitled  both  by  constitu- 
tional and  parliamentary  law. 

"  Second,  Because  the  preamble  specifying  the  ground  of  the  Synod's 
action  offered  no  good  and  sufficient  showing  for  setting  aside  the  vested 
ecclesiastical  rights  of  the  undersigned. 

"  Third,  Because  such  action  is  an  encouragement  of  insubordination 
in  the  lower  courts,  and  is  destructive,  not  only  of  individual  rights, 
but  of  the  peace,  purity^  and  unity  of  the  Church. 

"  October  27,  1876.  "  Thomas  H.  Skinner." 

"  The  undersigned  unite  with  the  Rev.  T.  II.  Skinner,  D,  D.,  in  the 
above  complaint  to  the  General' Assembly. 

"  T.  Charles  Thomas,  Nathanial  West, 

"  W.  B.  Spence,  R.  H,  Leonard, 

"  Henry  W.  Biggs,  Edward  H.  Camp, 

"J.  Gamble,  E.  D.  Ledyard. 
"  L.  H.  Long, 


action  of  the  session  of  the  second  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

"  '  Resolved,  that  the  session  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Cincinnati,  in  full  sympathy  with  our  Pastor  in  his  eff^orts  to  maintain 
the  faith  and  order  of  the  Presbyterian  standards,  and  to  secure  respect 
by  the  lower  courts  for  vested  ecclesia,stical  rights,  unite  with  him  in 
his  complaint  to  the  General  Asembly." 

"October  30,  1876." 

"J.  Burnet  Jr.,  Clerk  of  Session. 
"  James  Taylor,         Wm.  H.  Neff, 
"  Wm.  H.  Allen,        S.  J.  Broadwell, 
"E.  H.  Pendleton,    Wm.  H.  Mussey." 


51 


ACTION  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES. 

"  Eesolved,  That  we,  the  undersigned,  Trustees  of  the  Second 
Presbyterian  Chnrch  of  Cincinnati,  being  in  full  accord  and  sympathy 
with  our  Pastor  in  his  efforts  to  maintain  the  faith  and  order  of  the 
Presbyterian  standards,  and  to  secure  respect  by  the  lower  courts  for 
vested  ecclesiastial  rights,  unite  with  him  in  his  complaint  to  the 
General  Assembly. 

"November  6,  1876. 

"  Wm.  Woods,  John  Shillito,  President. 

"  Geo.  Wilshire,  Thornton  M.  Hinkle,  Sec. 

"John  A.  Murphy,  A.  S.  Winslow." 
"  G.  P.  Griffith, 


ACTION  OF  THE   DEACONS. 

"Resolved,  That  the  Deacons  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church,  of 
Cincinnati,  in  full  sympathy  with  the  Session,  the  Trustees  and  the 
Pastor,  do  cordially  unite  with  the  Pastor  in  the  above  complaint  to 
the  General  Assembly. 

"  D.  B.  LuPTON, 
"  H.  P.  Lloyd, 
"  Wm.  Hubbell  Fisher, 
"  Geo.  a.  Prichard," 
November  6,  1876. 


*•  The   undersigned,    members  and   Elders  of  other   Presbyterian 
Churches  of  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  also  unite  in  the  above  complaint. 

"  F.  T.  LocKWOOD,  W.  W.  Scarborough, 

"  Francis  Ferry,  H.  Stewart, 

"  Alex.  M.  Johnson,  Geo.  W.  McAlpjn, 

"  Hugh  McBirney,  Wm.  Clendenin, 

"  Richard  Smith,  M.W.Oliver, 

"Theo.  Kemper,  Ira.  Haynes, 

"John  W.Caldwell,  J.  C.  Bradford. 


THE  PROCESS, 


TESTIMONY  AND  OPENING  ARGUMENT 


OF  THE  PROSECUTION, 


VOTE  AND  FINAL  MINUTE, 


JUDICIAL  TRIAL  OF  REV.  W.  C.  McCUNE 


THE  PEESBYTERY  OP   CINCINNATI, 


FROM  MARCH  5  TO  MARCH  27,  1877. 


CINCINNATI: 
EOBEET   CLAEKB   &   CO.,  PEINTERS. 

1877. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


The  testimony  and  the  argument  in  the  following  pages,  in 
the  judieial  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  versus  Eev.  W.  C. 
McCune,  are  published  herewith  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of 
many  Presbyterians,  and  for  the  information  of  those  who  are 
interested  in  the  study  of  the  trial.  It  is  only  necessary  here  to 
mention  the  following  things  : 

1.  That  the  testimony  of  the  prosecution  has  never  yet  ap- 
peared— as  the  testimony  for  the  defense  has  appeared — in  any 
of  the  daily  or  weekly  issues  of  the  press,  whether  secular  or  re- 
ligious. 

2.  That  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  trial,  the  testi- 
mony for  the  prosecution  remained  intact,  complete  in  its  integ- 
rity, undamaged,  and  admitted  by  the  defendant.  It  is  to  this 
day  undisputed  and  unchallenged  testimony,  and  it  remains  for 
every  reader  to  judge  whether  it  supports  the  specifications  and 
the  charges. 

3.  The  vote  of  the  Presbytery  upon  each   specification   and    f>     hi^K.* 
uj^on  both  the  charges  is  appended,  under  each,  respectively.  ^    j^ 

4.  With  the  testimony  thus  nninvalidated  and  unbroken,  the     ^^0^ 

Presbytery,  by  a  verdict  of  29  to  8,  declared  the  charges  not  svs-    — 

tained.  '?  ^     >  / 

5.  Of  the  specifications,  the  Presbytery,  at  the  same  time, 
voted  that  the  specifications  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  9,  and  11,  under  Charge 

I  were  7wt  sustained  by  the  proofs  ;  and  that  6,  7,  8,  and  10  were  * 
sustained.     Also,  under  Charge  II,  the  specification  2  was  sus- 
tained,  and  specification  1  was  not  sustained. 

6.  The  final  minute  of  the  Presbytery,  which  is  printed  at  the 
close  of  the  argument,  reports  specification  10,  under  Charge  I, 
as  not  sustained,  whereas  said  siDecification  was  sustained  by  a  vote 

(ill) 


[4] 

of  21  to  17,  the  law  of  the  assembly  being,  that  to  "sustain  in 
part"  (9),  and  to  "sustain"  (12),  are  always  to  be  counted  to- 
gether. 

7.  The  Presbytery  has  decided  that  nothing  taught  or  done 
by  Mr.  McCune,  in  any  or  all  of  the  proofs  of  the  case,  was  in 
contravention  of  his  ordination  vows,  nor  impaired  the  integrity 
of  our  system  of  doctrine,  nor  was  disloyal  to  the  Church,  nor, 
if  generally  pei-sisted  in  by  our  ministers,  would  subvert  the 
Presbyterian  denomination. 

8.  The  opening  argument  of  the  prosecution  is  given  to  the 
public  at  the  request  of  many  members  of  our  Church,  and 
others  not  members  of  the  Church. 

THOMAS  H.  SKINNEE. 
Cincinnati,  April  10,  1877. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


The  Prosecuting  Committee  appointed  by  Presbytery, 
October  4,  1876,  to  take  in  liand  and  digest  all  the  papers 
and  documents  relating  to  the  case  of  the  Rev.  W.  C. 
McCune,  and  prepare  and  conduct  judicial  process  upon 
the  same,  herewith  submit  the  charges. 

They  deem  it  proper  to  state  that  they  have  given  dili- 
gent attention  to  the  labor  assigned  them.  During  the 
progress  of  their  labors  they  have  been  deeply  impressed 
with  the  gravity  of  the  case,  not  alone  in  relation  to  the 
defendant,  but  also  to  the  Presbytery  itself  and  to  the 
whole  Presbyterian  Church.  In  all  cases  of  prosecution 
where  "  Common  Fame"  is  the  accuser,  "  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America"  is  the  "prosecu- 
tor," appearing  in  defense  of  its  peace,  purity,  and  unity 
by  its  "  Committee  of  ^prosecution"  acting  in  its  name,  and 
duly  appointed  by  a  court  of  legitimate  jurisdiction,  before 
whom  the  cause  is  to  be  originally  tried.  The  Presbytery, 
jealous  of  its  solemn  attitude  and  function  as  a  court  of 
impartial  adjudication,  and  detaching  itself  from  the  Com- 
mittee of  Prosecution,  thus  refusing  to  assume  the  attri- 
butes of  both  prosecutor  and  judge  in  the  premises,  acts 
purely  in  a  judicial  character,  and  intrusts  the  whole  con- 
duct and  course  of  the  case  to  the  Committee  of  Prosecu- 
tion. Such  is  the  provision  of  our  (general  Pule  XLIL 
Rule  XLI  was  expressly  originated  in  the  year  1819  to  be 

applied  to  references,  complaint  and  appeal  cases  before  the 

(5) 


[6] 

General  Assembly  (Digest,  214),  and  afterward  extended  in 
1822  to  cover  all  such  cases  in  the  lower  judicatories  as 
well,  but  not  applicable  to  the  institution  of  original  pro- 
cess, as  is  shown  by  Rule  XLII,  enacted  at  the  same  time. 
By  this  Rule  the  Presbytery's  Committee  of  Prosecution 
is,  ipso  facto,  disfranchised  from  the  bench  of  judgment  by 
the  Presbytery's  own  act,  and  thrown  upon  their  own  re- 
sponsibility for  the  management  of  the  whole  case.  Under 
a  sense  of  this  responsibility  thus  laid  upon  them,  the  pros- 
ecution, as  representing  the  Presbyterian  Church,  its  con- 
stitution and  laws,  have  felt  that  nothing  should  be  done 
which  the  Presbyterian  Church  forbids,  and  all  should  be 
done  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  requires,  and  also  that, 
in  the  Spirit  of  the  Gospel  and  the  "Book,"  every  advan- 
tage possible  to  be  accorded  to  the  defendant,  consistent 
with  justice,  should  be  scrupulously  ascertained  and  liber- 
ally bestowed,  though  going  beyond  what  strict  justice 
itself  might  claim.  The  offense  charged,  therefore,  is  pre- 
sented as  one  in  its  general  nature,  precisely  as  made  by 
"General  Rumor"  itself,, viz :  Disloyalty  to  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  assuming  a  two-fold  form,  precisely  as  it  as- 
sumed in  the  same  "  Rumor,"  the  first  relating  to  the  doc- 
trines,  principles,  and  views  of  the  defendant,  this  being 
Charge  I ;  the  second  relating  to  the  practical  course  of  the 
defendant,  this  being  Charge  II.  The  description  of  the 
ofiense,  moreover,  has  followed  the  language  of  the  Pres- 
bytery's resolution  of  April  13,  1876,  at  Glendale,  and  the 
Title  of  the  "  Special  Report"  of  Presbytery's  Investigating 
Committee,  accepted  at  Mt.  Auburn,  September  13,  1876. 
The  Specifications  under  the  first  charge  are  eleven  in 
number-  ujider  the  •second  charge,  two.  The  Committee 
copfined  therpselves  entirely  to  a  plain,  direct,  and  unam- 
biguous statement  of  what  the  matter  of  fact  in  the  papers 
and  writings  of  the  defendant  will,  in  their  judgment,  jus- 


[7] 

tify.  Still  further,  in  order  to  give  the  defendant  the  ut- 
most possible  advantage,  as  well  as  reduce  the  case  and 
save  the  time  of  Presbytery,  they  have  agreed  to  present 
the  whole  case  of  the  prosecution  in  one  paper  at  this  time. 
To  this  end  they  have  not  restricted  themselves  to  a  simple 
reference  to  the  objectionable  language  in  the  writings  of 
the  defendant,  merely  noting  the  page  and  sentences  or 
paragraphs,  but  have  furnished  to  the  defendant  the  lan- 
guage itself,  upon  which  they  rely  to  support  the  several 
Specifications.  They  have  given  the  name  and  page  of  the 
document,  and  the  date  as  to  year,  month,  and  day,  thus 
basing  the  several  allegations  upon  the  words  of  the  de- 
fendant himself,  these  being  again  supported  in  part  by 
other  testimony,  including  the  testimony  of  the  Presby- 
tery's Committee  of  Investigation  in  their  special  report. 
If  there  is  seeming  redundancy,  it  is  not  because  the  evi- 
dence is  exhausted,  but  only  that  no  injustice  may  be  done 
the  defendant,  and  that  Presbytery  itself  may  be  satisfied 
on  this  point,  inasmuch  as  the  testimony  is  the  essence  ot 
all  judicial  cases.  In  the  same  interest  of  advantage  to  the 
defendant,  the  Committee  have  annexed  to  each  Specifica- 
tion the  several  references  to  the  Standards  of  the  Church 
with  which  they  deem  the  views  and  course  of  the  defend- 
ant to  be  in  conflict.  Thus  the  defendant  is  furnished  in 
advance  with  the  whole  testimony  of  the  prosecution  and 
all  the  law  points  in  the  case.  Every  advantage  the  Com- 
mittee could  give  has  been  given ;  every  right  carefully 
guarded;  every  benefit  readily  accorded.  The  Specifica- 
tions are  appended  to  support  the  Charges,  the  Proofs  are 
added  to  support  the  Specifications,  and  the  references  to 
the  Standards  are  subjoined  to  support  the  fact  that  the 
matter  charged  is  an  ofl:ense  against  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  The  prosecution  have  no  personal  witnesses  to 
cite.     The  evidence  is  entirely  documentary.     The  testi- 


[8] 

mony  aDd  the  law  are  s^iven  with  the  Charges.  The  Com- 
mittee desire  to  add  that  they  have  made  apphcation  to  the 
officers  of  the  Liuwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Church  for  access 
to  their  official  records  reUiting  to  the  organization  of  the 
Church,  but  said  officers  have  declined  to  accede  to  their 
request. 

With  this  explanation,  and  the  statement  that  the  Pros- 
ecuting Committee,  after  careful  examination  and  deliber- 
ation, have  come  to  a  united  judgment  upon  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  charges,  specifications,  testimony,  and  law  of  the 
case,  we  respectfully  submit  the  case  to  the  Presbytery, 
and  ask  that  it  may  be  prosecuted  according  to  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Thomas  H.  Skinner, 
E.  D.  Ledyard, 
S.  J.  Thompson, 

Committee  of  Prosecution. 
Cincinnati,  December  18,  1876. 


JUDICIAL   PROCESS. 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH 

versus 
THE  REV.  W.  C.  McCUNE, 

In  the  Court  op  the  Presbytery  op  Cincinnati. 

Action  brought  by  Common  Fame,  for  Disloyalty  to  the  Pres- 
byterian Church. 

Process  instituted  by  Presbytery. 

Eev.  Messrs.  Thomas  H.  Skinner  and  E.  D.  Ledyard  and 
Elder  S.  J.  Thompson,  Prosecuting  Committee. 


Offense :  DiMoyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

CHAKGE  I. 

That  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  being  a  minister  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  has,  for  years 
past,  in  contravention  of  his  vows  of  loyalty  to  the  distinc- 
tive faith  and  order  of  the  Presbj'terian  Church,  as  also  in 
opposition  to  the  terms  of  the  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical 
Basis  of  union  adopted,  unanimously,  by  the  Presbytery  of 
Cincinnati  (O.  S,),  at  Avondale,  September  8,  1869,  Mr. 
McCune  being  present  and  voting  for  the  same,  and  adopted 
by  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church  (0.  S.  and  N.  S.),  and  in 
joint  convention  November  12, 1869,  declared  as  of  binding 
force,  openly  proclaimed  and  persistently  advocated  doc- 
trines, principles,  and  views,  not  only  at  war  with  the  stand- 
ards of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  but,  if  generally  accepted, 

(9) 


[10] 

totally  subversive  of  its  constitution  and  of  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  Presbyterian  denomination  itself. 

This  Charge  rests  upon  the  following  specifications,  to  wit : 

SPECIFICATION   I. 

LaiD  of  Organization. 

As  to  the  Divine  Law  of  Organization  for  t^e  Christian 
Church. — In  this,  that  the  divine  Law  of  Organization  for 
the  Christian  Church,  in  all  time,  is  found  in  Romans  xv. 
7,  and  not  only  forbids  the  existence  of  different  evangelical 
denominations,  as  such,  and  any  exclusion  of  Christian 
members  or  ministers  in  one  denomination  from  full  fellow- 
ship in  another,  but  requires  oneness  of  visible  external 
organization,  and  immediate  preparation  for  the  reorgani- 
zation of  the  Presbyterian  and  whole  Christian  Church  on 
a  IlTew  Testament  basis  ;  moreover,  according  to  this  law, 
the  Church  may  cut  off  from  its  communion  no  one  who  is 
not,  first  of  all,  assumed,  or  proved,  to  be  unregenerate. 

Proof  1. — Christian  Unity,  December  6, 1873,  p.  5  :  "  "We 
claim  that  many  express  precepts  of  the  Kew  Testament 
require  organic  Christian  Union.  1.  The  precept  in  Ro- 
mans XV.  7 :  '  Receive  ye  one  another,  even  as  Christ  also 
received  us  to  the  glory  of  God,'  requires  ministers  and 
members  everywhere  to  receive  all  into  church  relations, 
whom  they  acknowledge  Christ  has  received."  Again, 
Christian  Standard,  iNTovember  13, 1875,  p.  362 :  "  The  great 
law  of  Christian  Union  is  tersely  and  comprehensively  ex- 
pressed, Romans  xv.  7  :  '  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another, 
etc.'"  Again,  repeated  in  the  Standard,  E"ovember  20, 
1875,  p.  370.  Again,  Declaration  from  Lin  wood  and  Mt. 
Lookout,  p.  4:  "We  are  also  convinced  that  we  find  the 
law  requiring  visible  Christian  Union  in  Romans  xv.  7,  as 
well  as  in  other  scriptures:  'Wherefore  receive  ye  one  an- 
other as  Christ  also  received  us  to  the  glory  of  God.'  We 
likewise  believe  that  the  precept  applies  in  the  case  of  minis- 
ters^ as  well  as  in  the  case  of  members,  and  that  no  one  who 
gives  scriptural  evidence  that  he  is  a  minister  of  the  Lord 


[11] 

Jesus  Christ  should  be  excluded  frotn  membership  in  any 
Presbytery,  Conference,  or  association  of  ministers  whatso- 
ever, by  any  denominational  law."  Again,  Christian  Unity, 
January  31,  1874,  p.  4:  "The  New  Testament /or^ic/s  de- 
nominational divisions,  and  requires  visible  union."  Again, 
Christian  Unity,  January  3,  1874,  p.  4:  "  Christ  prayed  for 
such  oneness  as  necessardy  involves  visible  unity."  Again, 
Christian  Unity,  November  15,  1873,  p.  4:  "God,  in  his 
providence,  urgently  calls  upon  all  Christ's  disciples  to  make 
immediate  prayerful  iweparation  for  a  united  Neiv  Testament 
organization  of  the  Church  in  every  placeJ"  Again,  Christian 
Unity,  August  1,  1875,  p.  5r:  "  And  were  it  not  for  the  ac- 
tive and  prejudiced  resistance  made  by  sectarian  managers 
and  2'>l(ice-m.ei},  and  for  the  eftbrt  always  necessary  and  gen- 
erally painful,  to  pass  from  an  old  organization  that  is  un- 
authorized and  extra-scriptural  to  a  new  one  on  a  New  Testa- 
ment basis,  there  is  a  great  host  of  living  Christian  hearts, 
now  separated  by  mere  human  sectarian  walls,  that  would 
gladly  unite  to-morrow  on  the  basis  of  the  unity  of  the  spirit 
loith  forbearance  in  love." 

Proof  2.— Christian  Unity,  March  14,  1874,  p.  4 :  "  The 
Apostles  received  all  Christians  into  the  fellowship  of  the 
Church.  They  never  excluded  a  disorderly  person  in  order 
that  he  might  org-anize  another  denomination."  Again  :  "  Re- 
port on  Christian  Union,  read  in  the  Presbyterian  Synod  of 
Cincinnati,  October  22,  1870,  and  ordered  to  be  printed," 
W.  C.  McCune,  Chairman  of  Committee,  p.  14 :  "  It  may 
indeed  be  needful  that  he  should  be  made  the  subject  of 
some  brotherly  forms  of  discipline,  of  admonition,  of  re- 
proof, or  even  of  temporary  suspension,  but  .he  may  not  be 
finally  excommunicated  and  forced  to  establish  another  denom- 
ination of  his  own,  in  order  to  attain  membership)  in  the  visible 
Church  of  Christ."  Again,  p.  12  :  "  Paul  gave  directions  to 
exclude  incestuous  persons  from  the  communion  of  the 
Church,  but  not  with  the  view  to  the  establishment  of  another 
denomination  in  which  incest  should  be  ruleable  and  respect- 
able." Again,  Organic  Union,  p.  74:  "He  (Dr.  P.)  assumes 
that  the  '  brother '  in  the  text  (2d  Thess.  iii.  6),  was  a  Chris- 
tian brother,  and  that  as  a  Christian  brother  he  was  to  be 


[12] 

excluded  from  the  Chiirch;  and  the  inference  is  that  it  can 
not  be  the  law  of  the  Church  that  the  mere  evidence  that  a 
man  is  a  Christian  brother  does  not  entitle  him  to  member- 
ship." Again,  p.  74 :  "  It  would  be  necessary  to  show  that 
the  Apostles  in  some  case  had  actually  excommunicated  a  man 
who  gave  evidence  that  he  was  a  true  believer.  But  there  is 
no  such  case  on  record.  There  is  no  proof  whatever  that 
the  '  brother  '  mentioned  in  the  precept  above  was  a  brother 
Christian." 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  45  (2),  307  (6),  674  (iii,  1,  2),  675 
(5,  6),  676  (7),  677  (10),  678;  44  (ii,  v,  vi),  48  (i),  49  (vi),  50 
(6),  54  (11,  12),  57  (14),  63  (2),  92  (ii,  2),  91  (2),  120  (i),  147 
(5),  169  (8,  c),  191  (iv),  620  (7).  Also  the  whole  Form  of 
Government  and  Book  of  Discipline  in  their  structure,  cap- 
tions, and  provisions,  and  all  the  decisions  of  the  approved 
Digest  bearing  upon  the  reception  or  exclusion  of  ministers 
and  members,  particularly  the  references  in  Digest  Index, 
p.  709,  under  "  Excommunication  ;"  Title,  Censure,  and  Di- 
gest, pp.  679  to  681,  704  (2),  85  (4),  73 ;  also  Princeton  Re- 
view, January,  1876,  p.  39. 

ISTOTE. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did??,o^  sustain 
this  specification.     The  vote  was  : 

Not  sustained. — Caton,  Possiter,  Cortelyou,  Cushman, 
Pitchie,  Camp,  Dudley,  Beecher,  Maxwell,  Chidlaw,  James, 
Chester,  Hawley,  Jones,  White,  Morris,  Hills,  Schwenck, 
Johnston,  McGechan,  Ilyndmau,  Dallas,  Mansfield,  Ken- 
nett.  Conn— 25. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,  Long,  Leonard,  Babbitt,  West, 
Wright,  Winuess,  Gamble — 8. 

Sustained  in  part. — Kumler,  Morey,  Monfort,  Evans — 4.] 

SPECIFICATION    II. 

Anti-denomination. 

As  to  the  essential  sinfulness  of  the  Presbyterian  and  all  oth- 
er existing  evangelical  denominations  as  such. — In  this,  that 
the  Presbyterian  and  all  other  evangelical  denominations,  as 


[13] 

such,  i.  e.,  in  their  peculiar  character  as  distinct  organiza- 
tions, apart  from  their  common  Christianity,  and  framed 
b}^  denominational  law  to  maintain  and  enforce  their  pecu- 
liar and  distinctive  creed  as  to  doctrine  and  polity,  are  es- 
sentially sinful,  are  not  churches,  and  have  no  scriptural 
right  to  exist. 

Proof  1. — Organic  Union,  p.  123  :  "  A  denomination  has 
no  right  to  exist  as  a  distinct  organization,  unless  she  is  or- 
ganized according  to  the  divine  law  of  organization."  Again, 
Christian  Unity,  November  15, 1873,  p.  4 :  "  We  shall  aim  to 
show  the  anti-scriptural,  wasteful,  and  enfeebling  nature  of 
existing  denominational  divisions,  and  to  persuade  Chris- 
tians, eventually,  to  organize,  instead,  but  one  church  in  one 

.  place."  Again,  Christian  Unity,  January  31, 1874,  p.  8:  "De- 
nominational divisions  in  the  church  are  wholly  destitute  of 
scriptural  authority"  Page  4  :  "  We  have  a  clear,  profound 
conviction  that  denominational  divisions  are  unscriptural." 
Proof  2. — Cincinnati  Commercial,  February  11, 1876  :  "  I 
am  opposed  to  denoniinationalism,  or,  to  use  a  more  expres- 
sive term,  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  all  sectarianism,  and  I 
am  just  as  much  opposed  to  Presbyterian  sectarianism  as 
any  other.  Denominational  Christian  Churches  are  char- 
acterized by  two  things  :  first,  their  Christianity ;  secondly, 
their  sectarianism.  On  account  of  the  first,  I  maintain  they 
have  a  right  to  exist.  The  second  thing,  their  sectarianism, 
is  sinful,  unscrijHural,  and  has  7io  right  to  exist."  "Secta- 
rianism is  a  hurtful  excrescence." 

Proof  3.— Commercial,  February  11,  1876:  "Dr.  Skin- 
ner's second  statement,  that  I  claim  I  am  opposed   '  only  to 

.  supernumerary  churches,  in  small  towns  or  villages'  is 
wholly  untrue.  I  never  said  so.  I  am  opposed  to  dividing 
of  the  Church  into  denominations  out  of  which  they  grow." 
"I  condemn  sectarianism  as  essentially  sinful  and  do  not 

.rejoice  in  it."  "I  do  not  believe  that  the  Presbyterian 
Churches  are  Christian  Union  organizations.  I  beheve 
they  ought  to  be.  I  believe  that  as  the  Presbyterian  Church 
receives  all,  as  members,  whom  she  believes  Christ  receives, 
so  she  should   receive  all  as  ministers,  whom  she  believes 


[14] 

Christ  receives.  I  believe  that  any  minister,  on  applica- 
tion, should  be  received  as  a  member  of  Presbytery,  and 
who  gives  to  Presbytery,  satisfactory  scriptural  evidence 
that  Clirist  has  received  him,  as  His  minister.  The  Presby- 
terian Church  requires  more  than  this."  Again,  Declaration, 
p.  4  :  "  We  further  maintain  that,  if  Christians,  living  in 
any  place,  unite  themselves  together  as  a  Church  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  receiving  all  as  ministers,  and  as  members, 
who  give  scriptural  evidence  that  Christ  has  received  them,  ^ 
such  a  Church  is  not  a  sect,  in  any  sense  whatever.  A  sect 
is  an  organization  that  cuts  off,  or  excludes,  from  its  fellow- 
ship those  whom  Christ  confessedly  receives.  But  the 
Church  that  welcomes  all  who  give  credible  evidence  that 
they  belong  to  Christ,  can  not  be  a  sect" 

Proof  4. — Christian  Standard,  February  26,  1876,  p.  66  : 
"  The  leading  Protestant  denominations  all  have  their  pecu- 
liarities, which  they  hold  not  merely  as  individual  belief, 
but  which  they  profess  to  enforce  as  denominational  law." 
.  .  .  *'  It  is  evident  that  the  sin  of  sectarianism  does  not 
consist  in  the  open,  candid  statement  of  what  their  secta- 
rian organic  laws  are,  but  on  the  actual  enactment  and  en- 
forcement of  these  sectarian  laws."  "  It  frequently  occurs 
that  churches  that  frankly  avow  their  peculiarities,  in  a 
creed,  in  the  lapse  of  time  cease  to  enforce  them.  The  Pres- 
byterian Church  has  ceased  to  enforce  Infant  Baptism." 
Again,  Christian  Standard,  March  4,  1876,  p.  74:  "The 
mischief  does  not  lie  in  the  open,  manly  publication  of  sec- 
tarian terms  of  fellowship,  but  in  the  actual  holding  and 
enforcing  of  them."  . 

■Proofs. — Commercial,  May  10,  1876:  "It  follows  that 
the  Presbyterian,  Lutheran  and  Methodist  denominations, 
taken  as  a  whole,  do  not  either  of  them  constitute  a  Church, 
using  the  word  in  the  singular  number,  but  it  would  be 
heartily  conceded  that  the  congregations  of  believers  of 
which  these  denominations  are  composed,  is,  each  one,  a  , 
Church."  Again,  Christian  Standard,  September  18,  1875, 
p.  298:  "It  is  well  known  that  I  publicly  maintain  that 
the  Presbyterian  Church  does  not  occupy  Christian  Union 
ground,  and  that  I  seek  to  persuade  her  to  occupy  that 


[15] 

ground,  just  as  I  would  the  Disciples."  Again,  Gazette, 
January  12,  1876:  "  I  regard  her  (the  Presbyterian  Church) 
with  no  popish  veneration.  I  do  not  consider  her  standards 
infallible.  I  deem  it  lawful  to  propose  revision.  ...  I 
regard  it  as  perfectly  ruleable  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 
to  propose  changes  in  her  standards  in  the  interest  of  Chris- 
tian Union,  to  memorialize  the  General  Assembly  to  this  end, 
and  to  seek  to  imbue  the  whole  denoynination  with  the  doc- 
trines of  the  New  Testament  on  the  subject  of  Christian 
Union." 

Proof  6. — Organic  Union,  p.  11:  "The  Romish  Church 
teaches  all  the  children  in  her  schools  that  tlie  true  Church 
is  organically  one,  and  that  she  is  one  while  the  Protestant 
Church  is  divided;  slie  is  therefore  the  true  church.  And 
ice  too  admit  that  the  true  Church  should  be  thus  united^ 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  44  (ii,  v,  vi),  45  (2),  50  (6),  54  (11, 
12),  57  (14),  91  (2),  120  (i),  147  (5),  191  (iv),  620  (7),  623 
(^,  4).  . 

Note. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  not  sustain 
this  specification.     The  vote  was: 

Not  sustained. — Caton,  Rossiter,  Cortelyou,  Cushman, 
Ritchie,  Camp,  Beecher,  Kumler,  Maxwell,  Chidlaw,  James, 
Chester,  Ilavvlej^,  Morey,  White,  Morris,  Hills,  Evans, 
Schwenk,  Joiinston,  McGechan,  Hyndmau,  Mansfield,  Ken- 
uett,  Conn— 24. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,  Long,  Leonard,  West — 4. 

Sustained  in  part. — Babbitt,  Dudley,  "Wright,  Winness, 
Jones,  Monfort,  Gamble,  Dallas — 8.] 

SPECIFICATION  III. 

Creeds. 

As  to  the .  sinfulness  of  Framing  and  Requiring  Assent  to 
Human  Creeds. — In  this,  that  everything  distinctive  in 
creeds  should  be  given  up,  or  struck  out,  and  no  human  in- 
ference or  deduction  from  divine  truth  be  allowed  ;  that  the 
Bible  itself  is  an  all-sufficient  and  the  only  proper  creed  for 


[16] 

all  time;  that  the  construction  of  an  extended  creed,  be- 
yond the  Scripture  statement  of  a /e?/;  leading  doctrines,  the 
most,  otherwise  discordant,  will  accept,  is  a  usurpation  of 
the  divine  prerogative,  and  the  enforcement  of  distinctive 
tenets  upon  the  official  ministry  an  oppression  of  the  con- 
science. 

Proof  1. — Organic  Union,  pp.  48,  49:  "As  they  (the 
Apostles)  demanded  of  applicants  for  membership  a  saving 
faith  in  Christ,  which  necessarily  included  all  other  saving 
graces,  and  thereby  excluded  all  fatal  heresies,  when  this  de- 
mand was  actually  met,  so  this  demand,  made  now  and  met 
now,  will  now  in  like  manner  exclude  all  fatal  heresy.  If  a 
brief  and  simple  creed,  embracing  a  feio  of  the  leading  fun- 
damental doctrines  of  the  Bible,  was  sufficient  then,  so  it  is 
sufficient  now.  If  it  most  wisel}''  guarded  against  perversions 
of  Scripture  then,  so  it  will  now.  If  it  most  effectually  ex- 
cluded heresy  then,  so  it  will  now^.  It  is  evident  that  an  ar- 
gument to  prove  the  necessity  for  enlarging  the  creed,  based 
on  present  perversions  of  Scripture,  and  the  prevalence  of 
error,  is  as  weak  as  it  is  popish."  Again,  same  page  : 
"Unblushing  assumption  of  prerogative  in  the  Protestant 
Church."  Again,  p.  115  :  "  Could  not  the  Church  of  Rome 
be  built  on  this  foundation?  Wherein  does  this  principle 
differ  from  the  rotten  basis  on  which  she  stands  ?"  Again, 
pp.  37,  38  :  "  If  he  (Dr.  P.)  meant  simply  to  affirm  that  the 
luhole  Church  of  the  living  God,  including  all,  of  every  name, 
who  give  satisfactor}'  scriptural  evidence  that  they  are  born 
of  the  Spirit  and  all  true  disciples  of  Christ,  would  have  the 
right  to  put  in  her  creed  her  interpretation  of  every  truth  of 
the  Bible,  concerning  which  they  could  unanimously  agree, 
this  creed  would  be  a  Catholic  creed,  neither  would  it  op- 
press  any  Christian's  conscience,  nor  exclude  any  true  disciple 
from  the  Church,  or  from  the  Lord's  table."  Again,  p.  47  : 
"IN^o  true  Protestant  needs  to  be  convinced  of  the  falsity  of 
every  argument  which  is  framed  to  prove  that  it  has  become 
necessary  to  enlarge  the  creed  of  the  primitive  church." 
Again,  Cincinnati  Gazette,  January  12,  1876  :  "  Christian 
Union  does  not  require  the  surrender  of  any  pecuharities, 


[17] 

either  of  faith  or  practice.  It  simply  requires  that  mere 
'peculiarities  he  vot  enforced,  contrary  to  conscience,  as  a  matter 
of  sectarian  hTw."  Again,  Christian  Unity,  Jan.  17,  1874  : 
"  Did  the  Apostolic  Church  demand  assent  to  tlie  Presbyte- 
rian Confession  of  Faith'?  And  if  he  admits  it  did  not, 
should  we  follow  apostolic  example?"  Again,  Christian 
Standard,  September  18,  1875  :  "  I  maintain  that  no  creed, 
written  or  unwritten,  should  contain  anything  that  is  human. 
It  should  not  contain  any  human  inference  or  deduction  of 
any  kind  whatever.  Everything  human  in  creeds  I  opimse."" 
Again,  Christian  Standard,  February  26, 1876,  p.  QQ  :  "  We 
affirm  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  jpr oyer  creed,  and  that  it  is 
a  sufficient  creed  for  every  church  on  earth."  Again,  Chris- 
tian Standard,  August  7,  1875,  p.  252 :  "  We  affirm  most 
heartily  and  positively  that  it  (the  Bible)  is  a  sufficient 
creed,  and  the  only  true  creef/,  for  all  true  Christians,  and  all 
ministers,  and  all  churches."  Again,  Christian  Standard, 
March  4, 1876,  p.  74  :  "A  human  creed,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
is  always  objectionable  ;  but  is  a  purely  gospel  creed  ob- 
jectionable ?  A  sectarian  creed  is  always  mischievous  and 
sinful,  but  is  a  genuine  jSTew  Testament  creed  to  be  con- 
demned ?" 

Proof  2. — "  Address  to  all  the  Christian  Ministers  and 
Churches  in  North  America,  with  Basis  of  Union,"  Octo- 
ber, 1874,  Cincinnati,  Rooms  of  Young  Men's  Christian 
Association,  p.  5  :  "  In  regard  to  the  ordination  and  exam- 
ination of  ministers,  the  Basis  teaches  that  no  other  tests 
should  be  applied  than  tlie  common  faith  wdiich  Christians 
have  held  everywhere,  and  in  all  ages-  of  the  Avorld,  as  a 
common  heritage."  Again,  p.  6:  "As  to  all  vexed  ques- 
tions at  issue  among  evangelical  believers,  concerning  man's 
relation  to  God's  sovereignty,  forms  of  making  religious  profes- 
sion, modes  of  worship,  subjects  of  baj)tism,  methods  of  organi- 
zation, kinds  and  functions  of  church  officers,  we  believe  they 
should  all  be  committed  to  the  broad  and  free  domain  of 
Christian  liberty,  until  God  shall,  in  his  infinite  goodness, 
vouchsafe  to  his  church  greater  light."  Signed  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune  and  others.  Again,  p.  17:  "  Neither  do  we  require 
any  assent  to  any  denominational  peculiarity,  as  a  condition 


[18] 

of  fellowship.'''  Again,  "Address  to  all,"  etc.,  p.  17: 
"  We  distinctly  disclaim  all  intention  to  require  an  assent 
to  amj  human  modificaiion  of  these  Scriplures,  or  atiy  human 
inferences  tlterefrom,  and  we  affirm  it  to  be  our  purpose  oiily 
to  require  an  assent  to  God's  own  truth,  expressed  in  God's 
own  language,  as  it  has  been  commonly  received  hy  all 
Christ's  ministers  and  people  in  all  times,  and  in  all  places." 
Again,  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Basis,  etc.,  "  Preliminary 
Statements,"  November,  1875,  p.  5  :  "  We  deem  it  wise  and. 
practicable,  and  at  the  same  time  both  unsectarian  and 
evangelical,  to  select  the  truths  held  in  common  by  evangeli- 
cal ministers,  as  lyroper  tests  of  somidness  in  the  faith  on  the 
part  of  those  who  ask  our  recognition  as  ministers  of  Christ. 
The  Basis  of  the  VJorUCs  evangelical  alliance  is  a  statement  of 
this  common  faith."  Again,  p.  9  :  "77ie  Evangelical  Minis- 
terial Association  of  Cincinnati  has  also,  on  two  occasions, 
made  a  statement  of  this  common  faith  of  all  evangelical 
ministers." 

Proof  3.— Christian  Unity,  March  28, 1876  :  "  Mr.  Frost's 
proposition.  (1.)  Agree  to  adopt  and  practice  whatever  we 
mutually  agree  that  the  Bible  teaches.  (2.)  Agree  to  give  up 
and  strike  out  of  our  respective  creeds  whatever  causes  di- 
vision, and  ivhic/t  lue  ourselves  do  not  regard  as  essential  to  the 
truth.  (3.)  Agree  to  give  up  and  strike  out  of  our  respec- 
tive creeds  whatever  causes  divisions  among  us,  and  for  which 
we  can  not  give  a  plain  precept  or  example  in  the  Word  of 
God."  Answer  by  Mr.  McCune.  "  The  first  and  third  of 
these  principles  seem  to  us  to  be  sound,  and  good,  as  far  as 
they  go.  But  we  .would  very  much  prefer  to  state  the 
third  principle  thus,  Agree  to  strike  out  of  our  creeds,  as  a 
matter  of  law,  everything  which  those  whom  we  acknowledge  as 
fellow  Christians  can  not  see  to  be  law  in  Scripture.  That 
would,  meet  the  case  aud.  secure  union.  To  the  second, 
principle  we  object  most  decidedly" — "on  account  of  its 
vagueness."  Again,  Christian  Unity,  Aug.  1,  1875,  p.  1, 
"  The  plan  of  organization  of  the  Texas  Convention,  April 
30,  1875,  at  Somerville."  The  third  principle,  (3.)  "  That 
churches  of  Christ  ought  to  have  no  authoritative  creed  or  dis- 
cipline but  the  Holy  iScrijHures."      Note  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 


[19] 

Melish,  co-editor  with  Mr.  McCune.  "This  plan  of  organ- 
ization, it  will  be  noted,  is  very  substantially  like  our  own, 
etc.  We  therefore  claim  these  good  brethren  to  be  one  with 
us,  genuine  lovers  of  organic  Christian  unity,  on  the  right 
platform,"  etc.,  etc. 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Chnrch  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  45  (2),  pp.  54-57,  81-86,  147  (5), 
191  (iv),  304  (8),  Baird's  Digest,  638,  Conf.  of  Faith,  chap, 
i,  sec.  vi. 

ITOTE. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  not  sus- 
tain this  specification.     The  vote  was  : 

Not  sustained. — Caton,  Rossiter,  Cortelyou,  Cushman,  Rit- 
chie, Camp,  Dudley,  Beecher,  Kumler,  Maxwell,  Chidlaw, 
James,  Chester,  Hawley,  Morey,  White,  Monfort,  Morris, 
Hills,  Evans,  Schweuk,  Johnston,  McGechan,  Hyndman, 
Dallas,  Mansfield,  Kennett,  Conn — 28. 

Sustained. — Lichsteustein,  Long,  West,  Wright,  Potter. 
—5. 

Sustained  in  part. — Leonard,  Babbitt,  Winness,  Jones, 
Gamble — 5.] 

SPECIFICATION'IV. 

Vows  of  Ordinatioyi. 

As  to  Ordination  Vows. — In  this,  that  Presbyterian  min- 
isters, under  the  obligation  of  solemn  ordination  vows, 
may  change  the  old  views  of  doctrine  and  polity  they  ap- 
proved and  pledged  themselves  to  maintain,  at  the  time  of 
their  ordination,  and  preach,  publish,  and  advocate  their 
new  views,  claiming,  meanwhile,  that  those  who  object  to 
this  should  themselves  leave  the  Presbytery,  while  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  new  views  may  remain  in  the  body  for  the 
sake  of  good  standing,  without  renouncing  their  departures 
from  the  standards. 

Proof  1.— Christian  Standard,  September  18, 1875  :  "  The 
Presbyterian  Church  only  asks  men  at  their  ordination, 
what  their  present  views  are,  and  never  pledges  them  not 
to  change  their  views." 


[20] 

Proof  2.— Gazette,  August  27, 1875 :  "  Yon  (Dr.  Monfort) 
seem  to  suggest  that,  inasmuch  as  I  am  an  advocate  of  or- 
ganic Christian  Union,  there  is  something  dishonorable,  if 
not  sinful,  in  my  continuance  as  a  member  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Cincinnati.  If  the  advocacy  of  Union  is  an  '  iniquity 
to  be  punished  by  the  judges,'  we  '  are  at  a  loss  to  under- 
stand '  what  right  you  have  to  be  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Cincinnati  !"  "  You  could  possibly,  remedy  the 
matter,  in  so  far  as  you  are  personally  concerned  (and  I 
trust  that  you  are  the  only  one  that  feels  aggrieved),  by  ask- 
ing yourself  for  a  letter  of  dismissal,  and  by  uniting  with 
some  body  of  ministers  in  which  there  are  no  Christian 
Union  men,  if  any  such  body  can  now  be  found."  "  I  wish 
my  name  to  remain  on  the  roll  of  the  Presbytery,  as  an  in- 
dorsement of  my  standing  as  a  Christian  minister."  "  It  is 
useless  to  make  any  intimations  to  me  on  this  subject.  I 
propose  that  my  name  shall  stand  on  the  roll  of  Pres- 
bytery lis  long  as  I  remain  in  Cincinnati  or  vicinity  !'' 

Proof  3. — Organic  Union,  p.  136  :  "  To  ask  a  man  not  to 
advocate  what  he  conscientiously  believes  to  be  God's  truth, 
is  to  ask  him  to  obey  m«u  rather  than  God." 

Proof  4. — Commercial,  October  17, 1876  :  "  It  is  proposed 
that  I  shall  give  assurance  in  writing  that  I  will  not  further 
the  principles  which  I  am  clearly  convinced  are  the  truth  of 
God.  My  inexpressibly  solemn  obligation,  as  a  minister  of 
Christ,  to  preach  His  truth  as  I  believe  it  in  my  heart,  I  am 
to  be  required  to  renounce.  Presbytery  is  to  be  placed  in 
God's  stead  over  me.  She  is  to  be  '  seated  in  the  Temple 
of  God,'  and  to  show  herself  that  she  is  God  over  my  con- 
science." 

Proof  5. — Organic  Union,  p.  150  :  "  The  writer  of  these 
pages  can  never  consent  to  preach  the  gospel,  in  any  de- 
nomination, upon  condition  that  he  shall  not  advocate  cer- 
tain princij^les,  which  he  believes  in  his  heart  are  the  truths 
of  the  gospel.  He  believes  that  the  great  princij^lcs  upon 
which  the  Organic  Union  of  the  Church  must  be  consum- 
mated, are  just  as  important  as  the  salvation  of  precious 
souls — as  the  conversion  of  the  world,  for  the  world  will 
never  believe  till  the  Chruch  is  one." 


[21] 

Proof  6. — Mr.  McCune's  statement  of  Christian  Union 
principles,  ^iven  to  Presbytery's  Committee  of  Investiga- 
tion, and  read  in  Presbytery  at  Mount  Auburn,  September 
13, 1876.  Collateral  of  the  Committee's  Report,  No.  4,  p.  6  : 
^'  I  have  publicly  advocated,  and  propose  to  advocate,  the  fol- 
lowing principles  on  the  subject  of  Christian  Union.  I 
make  verbatim  extracts  from  a  report  read  in  the  Synod  of 
Cincinnati  in  1870,  which  was  published  at  that  time  by  the 
authority  of  the  Synod  and  widely  circulated."  See  Re- 
port, from  p.  7  to  p.  12,  inclusive,  and  inserted  bj^  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune  in  the  Collateral  above  specified ;  especially  this  : 
"We  speak  not  of  voluntary  usage,  of  prevailing  customs, 
or  of  mere  recommendations,  for  Mese  things  never  produce 
denominational  divisions.  We  speak  of  organic  enactments^ 
of  denominational  laius ;  for  it  is  these  and  these  only,i\\sX 
divide  the  Church.  These  are  the  apples  of  discord  and  the 
wedges  of  division  in  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  these  pe- 
culiar, distinctive  denominational  laws  which  give  visible  form 
atid  sharp  outline,  and  repellant  and  perpetuating  power  to 
divisions." 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  399  (vii,  2,  3),  410,  411,  (2,  3,  6); 
45  (2),  48  (2),  49  (vi),  54  (11,  12),  55  (13  h\  57  (14),  191  (iv), 
144  (8),  218  (v),.231  (2,3);  Baird's  Digest,  662  (88); 
Moore's  Digest,  540  (v) ;  541  (vi) ;  548  48  (ii),  223  ;  Baird's 
Digest,  649  (72),  651  (3,  4) ;  Moore's  Digest,  221,  222 ; 
Baird's  Digest,  664. 

Note. 

[Presbyter}^  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  not  sus- 
tain this  specification.     The  vote  was : 

Not  Sustained. — Caton,  Rossiter,-  Cortelyou,  Cushman, 
Babbitt,  Camp,  Dudley,  Wright,  Beecher,  Kumler,  Max- 
well, Chidlaw,  James,  Chester,  Hawley,  Morey,  Jones, 
White,  Monfort,  Potter,  Morris,  Hill,  Evans,  Schwenk, 
Johnston,  McGechan,  Hyndman,  Dallas,  Mansfield,  Ken- 
nett.  Conn — 31. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,  Long,  West,  Gancible — 4. 

Sustained  in  part. — Leonard,  Ritchie,  AVinness — 3.] 


[22] 


SPECIFICATION  V. 

Plurality  of  Official  Membership. 

«f  As  to  Plurality  of  Official  Membership. — In  this,  that  Pres- 
byterian and  other  evangelical  ministers  may  belong  at  the 
same  time  to  two  difierent  ecclesiastical  denominations, 
antagonistic  in  their  principles,  and  subscribe  allegiance  to 
both. 

Proof  1. — Commercial,  February  11, 1876  :  "  I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  the  Presbyterian  Churches  are  Christian  Union 
organizations.     I  believe  they  ought  to  be." 

Proof  2. — "  Address  to  all  Christian  ministers  and 
Churches  in  North  America,  with  a  Basis  of  Union,  p.  6 : 
'  In  this  Basis,  which  we  submit  to  your  serious  and  prayer- 
ful attention,  we  have  suggested  what  we  believe  must  be 
the  initial  step,  viz  :  to  receive  every  Christian  into  our  fel- 
lowship, and  every  Christian  minister  who  teaches  the  common 
faith  of  the  gospel;  trusting  in  Divine  Providence,  that, if 
we  take  this  step,  God  will  vouchsafe  us  light  and  wisdom 
for  the  next.'  '  Brethren,  this  is  an  attempt  to  induce 
Christians  to  unite  on  .the  basis  of  their  agreements,  as  the 
experience  of  centuries  has  shown  that  they  can  not  unite 
on  their  disagreements.'  '  We  ask  every  minister,  who  ap- 
proves it,  to  say  so,  and  to  accept  a  cordial  invitation  to  at- 
tend the  Christan  Union  Convention  which  is  to  meet  at 
Sufl'olk,  Virginia,  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  May,  1875,  at 
10  o'clock,  A.  M.  Signed  by  W.  C.  McCune  and  others. 
Again, '  Address,'  etc.,  p.  19  :  '  All  ministers  and  Churches 
adopting  this  Basis  will  be  recognized  and  enrolled  as  Union 
Christian  ministers  and  Churches,  to  be  kyiown  as  the '  Union 
Christian  Churches  of  America.'  " 

Proof  3. — "Address,"  etc.,  p.  19  :  '''■Any  minister  who  has 
adopted  this  Basis,  but  does  not  deem  it  expedient  to  sever  ex- 
isting denominational  relations,  shall,  at  his  own  request,  be  en- 
rolled, notwithstanding .  Churches  desiring  to  take  action 
concerning  this  Basis  are  requested  to  give  public  notice  of 
a  meeting   for  that  purpose.     When   the  Church  is  con- 


[23] 

vened,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Basis  be  read,  and  that  then 
a  vote  be  taken  on  the  two  following  questions  :  Fir^t,  '  Do 
you  approve  the  Union  Christian  Basis?'  Second,  'Do 
you  adopt  the  Union  Christian  Basis?'  All  Churches, 
either  approving  or  adopting  this  Basis,  are  requested  to 
send  one  or  mq^e  delegates  to  attend  a  general  Convention 
of  the  Union  Christian  Churches,  at  Suffolk,  Va,,  on  the 
first  Wednesday  of  May,  1875.  All  -ministers  adopting  this 
Basis,  including  those  who  may  not  have  severed  heretofore  ex- 
isting denominational  relations,  are  also  invited  to  attend  the 
Convention,  to  take  counsel  concerning  the  promotion  of 
Christian  Union,  and  the  conversion  of  the  world." 
"Unanimously  adopted  and  signed,  October  24,  1874,  at 
the  Rooms  of  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association, 
Cincinnati,  Ohio."  Signed  by  W.  C.  McCiine,  Thomas  J. 
Mehsh,  and  others.  Again,  Christian  Unity,  August  1, 
1875,  p.  2 :  "  We  do  not  ask  either  ministers  or  Churches  to 
change  their  denominational  relations.  Therefore,  we  are  not 
laboring  to  build  up  a  new  sect."  Editorial  of  Thomas  J. 
Melish,  co-editor  with  Mr.  McCune  of  "The  Christian 
Unity." 

Proof  4. — "  Basis  of  Fellowship  of  the  Union  Christian 
Church  of  Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout,"  Hamilton  Co., 
Ohio,  Cincinnati,  November,  1875,  including  "  Declaration,^^ 
pp.  3-6;  Preliminary  Statements,  pp.  6-11;  "Basis  of  Fel- 
lowship," and  "  Regulations  of  Expediency,"  pp.  11-16. 
Page  5  :  "  We,  giving  to  each  other  evidence  that  we  are 
Christ's  disciples,  propose,  by  the  help  of  God,  to  organize  a 
^  Union  Christian  Chm^ch,'  in  accordance- with  the  precepts 
and  examples  of  the  New  Testament."  Page  6  :  "  We  will, 
on  scriptural  evidence,  cordially  receive  all  Christians  into 
the  fellowship  of  this  Church."  "  We  will  receive,  as  min- 
isters, all  who  give  us  scriptural  evidence  that  they  are  in 
fact  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  "  JS'either  do  we 
deem  it  practicable  to  inquire  of  a  candidate  for  the  ministry 
concerning  the  sense  in  which  he  receives  every  verse  of 
scripture  from  the  beginning  of  the  Bible  to  the  end  of  it." 
Page  10  :  "  Having  invited  Christian  ministers,  of  good  re- 
pute  for  soundness  in  the  faith,  to  aid  us  and  counsel  with  us,. 


[24] 

we  deem  it  sufficient  to  select  from  the  Bible,  for  the  occa- 
sion, the  great  truths  of  the  gospel  concerning  which  evan- 
gelical ministers  are  agreed,  both  as  to  their  fundamental 
character  and  as  to  their  true  sense,  or  that  we  should  use 
some  clear  and  competent  statement  of  the  common  faith 
already  prayerfully  and  deliberately  made,  s^ch  as  the  Basis 
of  the  World's  Evangelical  Alliance,  as  the  subject  of  con- 
ference with  any  whom  loe  are  about  to  send  out  into  the  world 
to  preach  the  everlasting  gospel."  Page  14:  "We  deem  it 
expedient  to  elect  certain  of  our  number  for  one  or  more 
years,  to  whom  we  will  especially  commit  the  spiritual 
oversight  of  this  Church,  in  conjunction  with  the  pastor 
(the  Eev.  Mr.  McCune)."  "A  request  of  a  majority  of  the 
members  voting,  at  a  meeting  duly  called  for  that  purpose, 
that  an  oflicer  shall  resign,  must  be  granted."  Basis  and 
Regulations,  "  unanimously  adopted  at  Linwood,  ISTovem- 
ber  7,  and  Mt.  Lookout,  November  8,  1875." 

Proof  5. — Gazette,  January  12,  1876:  "Dr.  Skinner 
seems  to  make  a  painfully  elaborate  efibrt  to  prove,  by  some 
rather  confusing  quotations,  that  the  Church  of  Linwood 
and  Mt.  Lookout  is  responsible  for  the  publication  of  the 
Declaration  and  Preliminary  Statements  which  accompany 
the  Basis  of  Fell oiv ship '.of  the  Union  Christian  Church  of 
Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout.  Certainly;  who  ever  thought 
otherwise?  His  ulterior  object  seems  to  be  to  make  me  cilso 
responsible.  I  will  gladly  relieve  him  of  any  further  trouble 
in  this  direction.  I  hereby  declare  that  I  heartily  approve 
of  the  Declaration  and  Preliminary  Statements  accompa- 
nying the  Basis  of  Fellowship  of  the  Union  Christian 
Church  of  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  and  respectfully 
commend  them  to  the  attention  of  the  Christian  public." 

Proof  6. — Christian  Unity,  August  1, 1875  :  "  The  Chris- 
tian Unity  begins  (again)  its  career  with  fixed  purposes  and 
aims.  It  will  earnestly  contend  that,  in  examining  candi- 
dates for  the  ministry,  all  tests  shall  be  laid  aside  except  such 
as  develop  the  faith  common  to  the  evangelical  family  of 
Christians,  etc.  Again,  Prospectus  of  the  Christian  Unity 
("monthly"),  date  near  August,  1875:  "When  earnest 
practical  men  propose  to  obey  the  Christian  Union  precepts 


[25] 

of  the  New  Testament,  hy  organizing  an  actual  visible  oneness, 
Mr.  Thrall  joins  those  who  are  themselves  sectarian  and  are 
not  ashamed  to  be  in  the  cry  :  O,  you  Christian  union  men 
are  about  to  establish  a  new  sect,  etc."  Again,  Christian 
Unity,  August  1,  1875,  p.  2:  "We  propose  to  hold  an  an- 
nual convention,  in  different  parts  of  the  United  States  in 
the  month  of  May,  to  which  we  invite  all  ministers  who 
approve  our  Basis  to  come,  and  all  Churches  wiio  accept  it 
to  send  delegates.'^  Again,  Christian  Unity,  August  1, 1875, 
p.  5  :  "  It'  the  union  movement  is  to  [)rove  a  sucess,  we  must 
organize,  band  ourselves  together  as  ministers  and  Churches, 
advocating  with  freedom  and  earnestness  our  peculiar  princi- 
ples. Tliat  was  meant  in  New  York  in  October,  18TS,  at 
Cincinnati  in  October,  1874,  and  at  Suffolk  in  1875.  Let 
the  work  of  organization  go  on."  By  Rev.  W.  B.  Wellons, 
co-editor  with  Mr.  McCune.  Again,  Christian  Unity,  Au- 
gust 1,  1875,  p.  1.  The  plan  of  the  Texas  Convention,  at 
Somerville,  April  30,  1875.  The  third  of  its  principles  is: 
(3.)  ''  That  Churches  of  Christ  ought  to  have  no  authorita- 
tive creed  or  discipline  but  the  Holy  Scriptures."  "This 
plan  of  organization  it  will  be  noted  is  very  substantially 
like  our  own,  etc.  We,  therefore,  claim  these  good  brethren 
to  be  one  with  us,  genuine  lovers  of  organic  Christian  unity 
on  the  right  platform,  etc." 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  494  (e),  625  (iii,  2,  3,  4),  626  (6), 
620  (7),  169  (8). 

Note. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  not  sus- 
tain the  specification.     The  vote  was: 

J\^ot  sustained. — Caton,  Cortelyou,  Leonard,  Cnshman, 
Ritcljie,  Babbitt,  Camp,  Dudley,  Wright,  Beecher,  Kumler, 
Maxwell,  Chidlaw,  James,  Winness,  Chester,  Hawley, 
Morey,  Jones,  White,  Monfort,  Potter,  Morris,  Evans, 
Schwenk,  Johnston,  McGechan,  Hyudmau,  Dallas,  Mans- 
field, Kennett,  Conn — 32. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,  Long,  West,  Gamble — 4. 

Sustained  in  part. — Rossiter,  Hills — 2.] 


[26] 


SPECIFICATION   VI. 

Terms  of  Ministerial  Fellowship. 

As  to  the  Terms  of  Ministerial  Fellowship. — In  this,  that 
no  Presbytery  has  a  right  by  any  terms  of  fellowship  to  ex- 
clude from  its  ecclesiastical  brotherhood,  or  constituent 
official  membership,  any  evangelical  minister  of  any  other 
evangelical  denomination,  but  that  such  minister  is,  ipso 
facto,  entitled  to  a  pastorate  in  any  Presbyterian  Church, 
to  a  seat  in  any  Presbytery  in  Christendom,  to  the  exercise 
of  jurisdiction  and  control  in  our  highest  courts,  eligible  to 
the  chair  of  instruction  in  Presbyterian  colleges  and  semi- 
naries, and  should  be  protected  in  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment and  free  speech. 

Proof  1, — Declaration,  p.  4:  "iVo  one  who  gives  scriptural 
evidence  that  he  is  a  minister  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
should  be  excluded  from  membership  in  any  Presbytery, 
Conference,  or  association  of  ministers  whatever,  by  any 
denominational  law."  Again,  Gazette,  August  27,  1875: 
"  I  believe  that  any  Christian  minister  has  a  right  to  mem- 
bership in  any  Conference,  Association,  or  Presbytery  in 
Christendom;  and  when  the  right  is  conceded,  visible 
Christian  Union  can  be  attained,  the  Saviour's  prayer  an- 
swered, and  the  world  saved."  Again,  Christian  Unity, 
February  28, 1874,  p.  4  :  "  If  a  Baptist  sincerely  and  intelli- 
gently invites  me  into  his  pulpit  as  a  minister  of  Christ, 
what  right  has  he-^o  vote  me  out  of  his  Association  f  If  a 
Methodist  invites  me  into  his  pulpit,  what  consistency  is 
there  in  voting  me  out  of  his  Conference  ?  If  a  Presbyterian 
invites  a  Methodist,  as  an  ambassador  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  to  preach,  in  view  of  the  infinite  responsibilities  of 
preaching,  how  can  he  refuse  him  ministerial  fellowship)  in  his 
Presbytery?  Has  Christ  one  standard  for  gospel  ministers 
and  Presbytery  another?"  Again,  Christian  Unity,  May  2, 
1874,  p.  4 :  "  Dr.  Monfort  will  say  I  believe  Mr.  Baumes  is 
one  of  Christ's  ministers,  but  I  can  never  vote  to  fellowship 
him  as  a  minister  in  this  Presbytery.     I  admit  he  is  Christ's 


[27] 

minister,  but  my  conscience  will  not  permit  me  to  receive 
him  as  a  minister  in  this  Presbytery  of  ministers,  organized 
according  to  Christ's  authority.  Beautiful  consistency! 
Delightful  fellowship !" 

Proof  2. — Mr.  McCune  in  "  The  Church  Union  "  of  Sep- 
tember 12,  1874,  p.  4 :  ^'■Every  minister  who  can  give  satis- 
factory evidence  that  he  is  one  of  Christ's  ministers,  should 
be  received  as  such  in  every  Presbytery,  Conference,  and 
association  of  ministers,  as  a  member  in  good  and  regular 
standing,  entitled  to  every  privilege  and  eligible  to  every  posi- 
tion which  such  membership  implies.''^ 

Proof  3. — "  Basis  of  Fellowship  of  the  Union  Christian 
Church  of  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,"  ITovember,  1875,  p. 
13:  "We  will  concede  the  right  of  private  judgment  and 
liberty  of  speech  alike  to  all  whom  we  do  receive."  Again, 
Organic  Union,  p.  136 :  "  To  ask  a  man  not  to  advocate  what 
he  conscientiously  believes  to  be  God's  own  truth,  is  to  ask 
him  to  obey  men  rather  than  God;  and  if  he  complies,  he 
places  erring  sinful  man  on  the  throne  of  the  Lord  God  om- 
nipotent." Christian  Standard,  April  22,  1876,  p.  130:  "I 
do  claim  the  right  of  private  judgment  for  all  men  absolutely, 
without  exception."  *  >i<  *  "And  further,  any  views  a 
Christian  entertains  before  he  comes  into  the  Church  he  has 
a  right  to  hold  and  -advocate  after  he  com.es  in." 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  399  (vii,  2,  3,  4),  410,  411,  (2,  3, 
4),  44  (ii),  45  (2),  48  (ii),  49  (vi),  54  (11),  55  (1,  2),  57  (14), 
63  (2),  85  (4),  91  (2),  92  (ii,  2),  148  (8),  620  (7),  169  (8),  191 
(iv),  218  (v).  Cases  of  Harker,  Balch,  Davis,  Craighead, 
Barnes. 

I^OTE. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  ^BiSi  sus- 
tain this  specijB.cation.     The  vote  was: 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,  Long,  Leonard,  Ritchie,  Bab- 
bitt, Camp,  Dudley,  West,  Wright,  Maxwell,  James,  Win- 
Dess,  Jones,  Monfort,  Potter,  Gamble,  Conn — 17. 

Sustained  in  part. — Caton,  Cortelyou,  Ciishman,  Beecher, 
Kumler,  Chidlaw,  Chester,  Morey,  White,  Morris,  Evans, 
Schweuk,  Johnston,  Hyndman,  Dallas,  Mansfield,  Kennett 
—17. 

J^ot  sustained. — Hossiter,  Hawley,  Hills,  McGechan — 4.] 


[28] 


SPECIFICATION   VII. 

Infant  Church  Membershi'p  Denied. 

As  to  the  .  Constituent  Membership  of  the  New  Testament 
Church. — In  this,  that  the  doctrine  of  infant  church-mem- 
bership, grounded  in  the  covenant  of  God  with  believers, 
in  behalf  of  their  offspring,  is  to  be  repudiated  as  a  High- 
chnrch  theory,  and  that  the  true  definition  of  the  l^ew 
Testament  Church  is  that  it  consists  of  Christians  only, 
believers  only — not  their  children — an  assembly  or  company 
of  the  regenerate  alone. 

Proof  1. — Cincinnati  Commercial,  May  9,  1876:  "The 
Presbyterian  tlieory  concerning  a  local  Church  is  expressed 
in  the  Presbyterian  Form  of  Government,  Chapter  II,  Sec- 
tion 2  :  '  The  universal  Church  consists  of  all  those  persons 
in  every  nation,  together  icith  their  children.,  who  make  a  pro- 
fession of  the  holy  religion  of  Christ  and  of  submission  to 
his  laws.'  In  Section  4  we  have  the  definition  of  a  local 
or  particular  Church,  as  follows:  'A  particular  Church 
consists  of  a  number  of  professing  Christians,  with  their  off- 
spring,  voluntarily  associated  together  for  divine  worship 
and  godly  living,  agreeably  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
submitting  to  a  certain  form  of  government.'  By  '  pro- 
fessing Christians  '  in  this  definition,  we  presume,  is  meant 
those  who  make  a  credible  profession  of  faith  in  Christ, 
of  repentance,  of  obedience,  of  being  born  again,  of  being 
new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus;  in  a  word,  those  who  give 
evidence  that  they  are  Christians.  But  what  is  meant  by 
the  declaration  that  the  ^offspring'  of  professing  Christians 
are  included  in  the  Church  is  not  so  clear."  ^  *  "  We 
believe  it  may  be  truly  afiarmed  in  fact,  and  in  actual  prac- 
tice, Presbyterians  have  not  corrupted  their  churches  by  the 
admission  to  practical  and  efiicient  membership  of  a  multi- 
tude of  unbelieving,  unconverted  children,  although  such  a 
theory  may  still  linger  among  certain  High-churchmen, 
Neither  does  the  denial  of  membership  to  children  conflict 


[29] 

with  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism^  unless  the  saerameiita- 
rian  dogma  is  admitted  that  baptism  is  the  '  door  into  the 
church/  which  not  one  single  text  of  Scripture  affirms." 
Again,  further  on:  "It  is  essential  to  a  local  Christian 
Church  that  it  should  be  composed  of  Christians,  so  far  as 
we  are  able  to  judge.  Some  would  add,  '  and  also  includes 
their  children,'  but  this  is  not  a  part  of  the  common  faith." 
'■'■A  Christian  Church  is  a  Church  of  Christians,  an  assembly 
of  believers,  a  company  of  regenerate  soulsJ^ 

Pkoof  2.— Christian  Standard,  April  22,  1876 :  ''i  utterly 
repudiate  the  doctrine  of  infant  church-membership."  Again, 
Commercial,  October  17,  1876  :  "  It  has  been  said  by  those 
hostile  to  this  great  principle  of  Church  Union,  thus  formu- 
lated, that  it  would  exclude  cdl  baptised  children  from  church- 
member  ship,  who  can  not  give  satislactory  scriptural  evidence 
that  they  are  Christians.  I  unhesitatingly  admit  thai  this  is 
true." 

Proof  3.— Christian  Standard,  February  26,  1876 :  ''The 
Presbyterian  Church  has  ceased  to  enforce  infant  baptism." 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  107  (ii,  iv),  108  (2,  a,  b,  d),  497, 
(vi),  671  (ix,  i),  705.  Conf.  of  Faith,  xxv  (li),  xxviii  (iv). 
Larger  Cat.,  Q.  62,  166.  Shorter  Catechism,  Q.  95.  Conf. 
of  Faith,  xxv  (v),  xxix  (viii). 

ISTOTE. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  sustain 
this  specification.     The  vote  was  : 

Sustained. — LichvSten stein,  Long,  Leonard,  Ritchie,  Bab- 
bitt, Camp,  West,  Wright,  Beecher,  Kumler,  Winness, 
Morey,  White,  Monfort,  Potter,  Hills,  Gamble,  Evans,  Dal- 
las, Conn — 20. 

Sustained  in  part. — Bossiter,  Cortelyoii,  Cushman,  Dud- 
ley, James,  Hawley,  Jones,  Morris,  Schwenk,  Kennett — 10. 

Not  sustained. — Caton,  Maxwell,  Chidlaw,  Chester,  Johns- 
ton, McGechau,  Hyndmau,  Mansfield — 8.] 


[30] 

SPECIFICATION   VIII. 

Admission  of  Unbaptised  Persons. 

As  to  the  Admission  of  Unbaptised  Persons  to  Church  Mem- 
bership.— In  this,  that  unbaptised  persons  who  deny,  or 
scruple  to  admit,  the  necessary  and  perpetual  obligation  of 
water-baptism,  as  instituted  by  Christ,  and  the  Ordinance  of 
Baptism  itself  as  a  covenant  sign  and  seal,  and  initiatory 
rite  of  entrance,  for  believing  adults,  into  the  Christian 
Church,  may,  notwithstanding,  be  admitted  to  church 
membership ;  and  that  the  one  condition  and  requirement 
for  entrance  into  the  visible  church  is  credible  evidence  of 
faith  in  Christ. 

Pkoof  1.— Christian  Standard,  April  22, 1876  :  "  I  would 
vote  to  receive  any  one  who  can  give  satisfactory  evidence 
that  he  is  a  true  Christian,  and  cheerfully  grant  him  for- 
bearance as  a  fellow  member  in  the  church,  although  he  has 
the  views  of  the  ^Friends'  concerning  water-baptism."  Again, 
Commercial,  October  17,  1876  :  "  It  has  been  further  stated 
that  this  principle  (Christian Union)  would  admit  a 'Friend' 
who  could  give  satisfactory  scriptural  evidence  that  he  waa 
a  Christian,  but  who  could  not  conscientiously  be  baptised 
with  water,     I  admit  this  also." 

Proof  2. — Eeport  of  Presbytery's  Investigating  Com- 
mittee; Collateral  No.  4,  pp.  15,  16  :  "It  has  been  said,  in 
eft'ect,  that  this  doctrine  can  not  be  true,  because,  if  it  is,  it 
would  admit  to  chur<;h  fellowship  every  member  of  the  soci- 
eties, commonly  called  Quakers,  who  can  give  scriptural 
evidence  that  they  have  been  savingly  renewed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  who  make  a  credible  profession  of  their 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  who  at  the  same  time 
deny  the  perpetual  obligation  of  water-baptism.  I  cordially 
admit  that  members  of  the  society  of 'Friends'  can  give 
this  evidence,  and  that  this  great  principle  of  church  fel- 
lowship would  concede  to  therri  all  the  fellowship  they  will 
accept." 

Proof  3.— Christian  Standard,  April  22,  1876,  p.  130 : 


[31] 

*'  The  '  Quaker  gun '  never  alarmed  me.  And  I  have  all 
the  time  maintained,  just  as  I  do  now,  that  faith  in  Christ 
is  the  only  New  Testament  requirement  for  membership^' 
"  In  the  exceptional  case  of  a  Christian  who  does  not  be- 
lieve in  water-baptism  at  all,  his  faith  in  Christ  entitles  him 
to  membership  nevertheless."  Again,  Christian  Standard, 
E'ov.  13,  1875,  p.  362:  "We  maintain  that  faith  in  Christ 
is  not  merely  the  great  condition,  but  the  only  condition." 

Again,  Christian  Standard,  p.  362  :  "We  add,  that  when 
we  say  that  faith  in  Christ  is  the  '  one  essential  condition 
of  entrance,'  we  mean  that  is  the  only  condition." 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  our  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Conf.  of  Faith,  xxviii  (i,  ii).  Larger  Catechism,  Q. 
165,  166,  176.  Moore's  Digest,  677  (10)  (iv) ;  678,  129  (4) ; 
430  (5),  671  (ix,  i),  674  (iii,^l,  2),  675  (5,  6),  676  (7). 

Note. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  sustain 
this  specification.     The  vote  was  : 

Sustained. — Lichsteustein,  Long,  Leonard,  Ritchie,  Camp, 
West,  Wright,  Beecher,  Kumler,  Chidlaw,  James,  Win- 
jiess,  Morey,  White,  Monfort,  Potter,  Hill,  Gamble,  Evans, 
Schwenk,  Mansfield,  Kennett,  Conn — 23. 

Sustained  in  part. — Caton,  Rossiter,  Costelyou,  Cushraaa, 
Babbitt,  Dudley,  Hawley,  Jones,  Morris,  Dallas — 10. 

Not  sustained. — Maxwell,  Chester,  Johnston,  McGechan, 
Hyndman— 5.] 

SPECIFICATION   IX. 

Saving  Faith,  What  Is  It  ? 

As  to  saving  Faith  in  Christ  and  in  the  Word  of  God. — 
In  this,  that  a  person  may  have  true  and  saving  faith  in 
Christ,  and  in  God's  Word,  without  believing  either  that 
Christ  was  true  man  or  that  the  Word  of  God  is  truly  in- 
fallible, and  that  true  and  saving  faith,  ipso  facto,  excludes 
all  fatal  heresy. 

rKOOF  1.— Christian  Unity,  January  31, 1874, p.  4:  "We 
believe  that  a  man  may  be  a  Christian  and  not  believe  in  the 
infallibility  of  the  Bible,    although  '  almost '  all    Christiana 


[32] 

do  believe  the  Bible  to  be  infallible."  "  We  believe  that  a 
man  may  be  a  Christian  and  not  believe  in  the  j:)r op er  hu- 
manity of  Christ,  although  '  alniost '  all  Christians  do  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  was  true  yuan  as  well  as  God." 

Pkoof  2. — Organic  Union,  pp.  48,  49:  "As  they,  the 
Apostles,  demanded  of  applicants  for  membership  a  saving 
faith  in  Christ,  which  necessarily^  included  all  other  saving 
graces,  and  thereby  excluded  all  fatal  heresies,  when  this  de- 
mand was  actually  met,  so  this  demand,  made  now,  and 
met  now,  will  now  in  like  manner  exclude  all  fatal  heresy." 
Again,  Christian  Unity,  January  31,  1874:  "Regenerate 
souls  are  all  orthodox." 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Conf.  of  Faith,  chap,  xiv  (i,  ii),  chap,  i  (v,  x),  Shorter 
Catechism,  Q.  86;  Conf.  of  Faith,  chap,  viii  (ii) ;  Larger 
Catechism,  Q.  36,  37,  39. 

Note. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  not  sus- 
tain tliis  specification.     The  vote  was: 

JSot  sustained. —  Caton,  Rossiter,  Cortelyou,  Cushman, 
Babbitt,  Camp,  Dudley,  Wright,  Beecher,  Kumler,  Max- 
well, Chidlaw^  James,  Chester,  Ilawley,  Morey,  Jones,. 
White,  Monfort,  Morris,  Hills,  Evans,  Johnston,  McGechan, 
Hyndman,  Dallas,  Mansfield,  Kennett,  Conn — 29. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,  Long,  West — 3. 

ISustaiyied  in  part. — Leonard,  Ritchie,  Winness,  Potter, 
Gamble,  Schwenk — 6.] 

SPECIFICATION   X. 

Time  of  Advocating  His  Views. 

As  to  Persistance  in  Advocacy  of  the  foregoing  Doctrines^ 
Principles,  and  Views. — In  this,  that  for  many  years  last 
past,  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  being  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Cincinnati,  has  regularly  persisted,  as  lecturer, 
editor  and  pastor,  to  openly  proclaim,  publish  and  advocate, 
the  aforesaid  Christian  Union  doctrines,  principles  and 
views ;  that  since  the  appointment  of  the  Presbytery's 
Committee  of  Investigation,  he  has  continued  to  do  the 
same  in  the  public  secular  press,  May  9, 1876,  before  the 


[  33  ] 

Presbj^tery's  Investigating  Committee,  Jane  26,  1876,  and 
openly  in  Presbytery  itself,  October  4,  1876,  and  again  in 
tbe  secular  press,  October  17,  1876,  subsequent  to  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  Prosecuting  Committee ;  having  an- 
nounced his  purpose  to  pursue  in  future,  as  in  the  past,  the 
the  advocacy  of  the  same  principles  of  Christian  Union. 

Proof. — Commercial,  February  11,  1876  :"  I  have  been 
perfectly  candid  and  outspoken  on  this  subject,  for  many 
years."  "  I  do  not  believe  the  Presbyterian  Churches  are 
Christian  Union  organizations.  I  believe  they  ought  to 
be."  "  If  the  Presbytery  is  not  willing  to  allow  me  the 
liberty  I  have  enjoyed  unquestioned  till  Dr.  Skinner  made  his 
attack,  tljat  is  a  matter  for  her  to  determine."  Again,  Com- 
mercial, February  15, 1876  :  '■'■I  am  advocating  no  sentiments, 
now,  that  I  have  not  openly  iwoclaimed  for  ten  years  back." 
Again,  Commercial,  May  9,  1876  :  Article  in  full,  read  be- 
fore "  The  Evangelical  Ministerial  Association  "  of  Cincin- 
nati. Again,  Collateral  No.  4  of  the  Report  of  the  Pres- 
bytery's Investigating  Committee,  June  26,  1876.  Again, 
Commercial's  Report  of  Presbytery's  Proceedings,  October 
5,  1876.  Again,  Commercial,  Mr.  McCune's  Protest,  Oc- 
tober 17,  1876.  Again,  Collateral  No.  4,  pp.  20,  21  :  "I 
have  written  largely  for  the  press,  secular  and  religious,  as 
an  editor  and  contributor,  in  the  last  twenty  years."  Again, 
p.  6  :  "I  have  publicly  advocated  and  projjose  to  advocate 
the  following  principles  on  the  subject  of  Christian  Union, 
etc." 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  our  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  48  (2),  54  (3),  55  (2),  304  (8),  57 
(14);  Cases  of  Ilarker,  B.alch,  Davis,  Craighead,  and 
Barnes. 

Note. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  sustain 
this  specification.     Tbe  vote  was  : 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,  Long,  Leonard,  Cushman, 
Babbitt,  Camp,  Dudley,  West,  Wright,  Winuess,  Potter, 
Hill— 12. 


[34] 

Sustained  in  part. — Caton,  Rossiter,  Ritchie,  Kumler,. 
James,  Hawley,  Morey,  Jones,  "White — 9. 

Not  sustained. — Cortelyou,  Beecher,  Maxwell,  Chidlaw, 
Chester,  Monfort,  Morris,  Gamble,  Evans,  Scliwenk,  John- 
ston, McGechan,  Hyndman,  Dallas,  Mansfield,  Keunett, 
Conn— 17.] 

SPECIFICATION    XI. 

Common  Fame. 

As  to  the  Common  Fame  in  reference  to  the  Whole  Charge. — 
In  this,  that  in  addition  to  evidence  involved  in  the  forego- 
ing proofs,  attached  to  the  specifications,  many  newspapers 
have  published  articles  concerning  it,  and  the  Presbytery 
of  Cincinnati  appointed  a  Committee  of  Investigation,  April 
13,  1876,  "to  confer  with  Mr.  McCune  and  examine  into 
certain  rumors  touching  his  loyalty  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  report  to  the  Presbytery."  Said  Committee 
having  so  conferred  and  examined,  and  so  reported  at  Mt. 
Auburn,  September  13,  1876. 

Proof  1. — Herald  and  Presbyter,  N^ovember  8,  1873  ; 
August  18,  1875;  January  5,  1876;  March  22,  1876. 
Christian  Observer,  December  22,  1875 ;  January  19,  1876  • 
January  26,  1876.  Journal  and  Messenger,  January  19, 
1876;  January  26,1876.  Christian  Standard,  many  arti- 
cles from  July  1875  to  April,  1876.  The  Presbyterian 
Weekly,  January  20,  1876  ;  February  3,  1876.  Christian 
Union,  January  26,  1876.  Cincinnati  Gazette,  August  27, 
1875;  December  17,  1875;  December  30,  1875;  January 
11,  12,  21,  24,  25,  1876.  Cincinnati  Commercial,  February 
8,  9, 10, 11, 1876  ;  February  5, 1876.  Christian  News,  Feb- 
ruary, 1876.  The  Interior,  February  10,  17,  26,  1876; 
March,  2,  16,  1876.  Central  Presbyterian,  February  9, 
1876,  quoting  the  United  Presbyterian,  North-western 
Christian  Advocate,  February,  1876.  New  York  Evan- 
gelist, March  9,  1876.  The  Presbyterian,  January  19  and 
22, 1876  ;  February  12,  1876. 

Proof  2. — Action  of  the  Cincinnati  Presbytery,  at  Glen- 
dale,  April  13,  1876 :  "  Whereas,  for  some  time  fast,  there 


.        [35] 

have  been  current  rumors  in  regard  to  the  views  and  course 
of  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  a  member  of  this  Presbytery,  in- 
volving the  question  of  his  loyalty  to  the  order  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  whereas,  there  seems  to  be  some 
difference  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  subject; 

"  Therefore,  Resolved,  that  a  Committee  of  three  minis- 
ters and  two  ruling  elders  be  appointed  to  have  a  full  con- 
ference with  Mr.  McCune,  and  to  inquire  into  all  the  facts 
bearing  on  the  case  and  report  to  Presbytery  at  the  next 
stated  meeting." 

Proof  3. — Special  report  of  the  Investigating  Committee 
of  Presbytery,  published  in  Gazette,  September  14,  1876 : 
Mr.  McCune's  scheme  "  denies,  in  effect,  the  right  of  every 
Evangelical  Church  to  testify  in  favor  of  any  peculiar  doc- 
trine of  its  system,  whether  Arminian  or  Calvinistic, 
Baptist  or  P?edo-Baptist,  Prelatical,  Presbyterial,  or  Con- 
gregational. It  allows  no  system  of  doctrines,  no  order  of 
worship,  no  form  of  government,  for  it  claims  union  upon 
what  is  common  to  Evangelical  Churches,  and  these 
churches  have  in  these  respects  nothing  common.  They 
may  be  said  to  agree  in  requiring  faith  and  regeneration,  as 
evidences  of  conversion,  but  they  may  differ  widely,  and  do 
differ  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  faith  and  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  system  makes  a  call  to  the  ministry  the 
only  bond  of  ministerial  fellowship  in  Organic  Church 
Union,  while  Evangelical  Churches  differ  on  the  question, 
what  is  a  call  to  the  ministry.  It  misinterprets  the  Savior's 
prayer  that  his  people  'may  be  one'  as  fulfilled  only  by 
Organic  Church  Union.  Mr.  McCune,  with  his  usual 
frankness,  acknowledges  that  under  his  system,  which  re- 
quires that  all  churches  should  receive  to  membership  all 
whom  they  believe  Christ  has  received,  he  would  admit 
orthodox  Friends  who  deny  the  outward  rites  of  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  does  not  accord  with  our 
standards,  which  teach  that  baptism  admits  the  party  bap- 
tized into  the  visible  church  ;  that  it  is  a  great  sin  to  neglect 
or  contemn  this  ordinance,  and  that  this  ordinance  is  in- 
tended to  put  a  visible  difference  between  those  that  belong 
to  the  church  and  the  rest  of  the  world.     To  us  it  seems 


[36]        . 

very  plain,  that  a  church  without  sacraments  can  not  be  re- 
garded as  a  part  of  the  visible  church,  although  true 
Christians  in  it  may  be  part  of  the  'household  of  faith,' 
and  may  have  fellowship  with  any  branch  of  the  visible 
church  in  prayer  and  in  Christian  work.  Our  assembly  has 
decided  that  a  person  having  scruples  in  regard  to  infant 
baptism  may  nevertheless  be  received  to  membership  in  our 
Church ;  but  this  forbearance  can  not  be  extended  to  any 
one  in  regard  to  his  own  baptism.  There  are  many  things 
that  a  disciple  may  learn  in  regard  to  duty  after  his  recep- 
tion into  the  Church,  but  his  own  baptism  is  essential  to  his 
reception  and  the  completion  of  it,  if  he  has  not  been  bap- 
tized in  infancy.  Any  system  of  Christian  Union  which 
contravenes  these  principles  and  ignores  the  command  of 
Christ,  '  Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,'  etc.,  if  held 
and  practiced  by  our  office  bearers,  must  be  damaging  to 
the  purity  and  unity  of  th(i  Church.  If  we  understand  Mr. 
McCune's  paper,  his  views  are  also  erroneous  in  regard  to 
the  relations  of  the  baptized  children  of  believing  parents. 
He  professes  to  believe  in  infant  baptism,  but  he  denies  in- 
fant membership.  The  baptism  of  infants  gives  them,  as 
he  holds,  no  advantage  over  the  unbaptized  in  their  relation 
to  the  Church.  He  does  not  admit  that  they  are  even 
minors  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Israel.  This  we  .regard 
as  erroneous,  and  as  bringing  infant  baptism  into  disrepute. 
According  to  this  system,  Orthodox  Friends  may  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  visible  Church  without  baptism,  while  infants 
may  be  baptized  and  yet  have  no  connection  with  the 
Church.  Either  view  is  a  denial  that  baptism  admits  the 
party  baptized  into  the  visible  Church,  and  any  one  who 
holds  these  views  can  not  be  expected  to  teach  that  it  is  a 
great  sin  to  contemn  or  neglect  this  ordinance." 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  thfr  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  499  (iv,  v).  See  also  Resolution 
of  Presbytery  of  Glendale,  appointing  Committee  of  In- 
vestigation in  the  case  of  Mr.  McCune,  April  13,  1876. 
Special  Report  of  Investigating  Committee,  Mt.  Auburn, 
September  13,  1876. 


[37] 

Note. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  not  sustain 
this  specification.     The  vote  was  : 

Not  sustained. — Caton,  Kossiter,  Cortelyou,  Cushman,  Rit- 
chie, Babbitt,  Camp,  Dudley,  Wright,  Beecher,  Kaniler, 
Maxwell,  Cbidhiw,  James,Winness,  Chester,  Hawley,  Morey, 
Jones,  Wliite,  Montort,  Morris,  Gamble,  Evans,  Schwenk, 
Johnston,  McGecliau,  Hyndman,  Dallas,  Mansfield,  Ken- 
nett.  Conn — 32. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,  Long,  Leonard,  West,  Potter 
— 5. 

Sustained  in  part. — Hills — 1.] 


Note  as  to  the  Charge. 

Presbytery  voted  that  none  of  the  specifications  which 
they  did  sustain,  and  none  of  the  proofs  under  any  of  the 
specifications  which  they  did  not  sustain,  proved  the  truth 
of  the  matter  of  this  Charge  I.     The  vote  was  : 

Not  sustained. — Caton,  Cortelyou,  Cushman,  Ritchie, 
Babbitt,  Camp,  Dudley,  Beecher,  Kumler,  Maxwell,  Chid- 
law,  James,  Chester,  Hawley,  Morey,  Jones,  White,  Mon- 
fort,  Morris,  Hills,  Evans,  Schwenk,  Johnston,  McGechan, 
Hyndman,  Dallas,  Mansfield,  Kennett,  Conn. — 29. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,  Long,  Leonard,  West,  Wright, 
Winness,  Potter,  Gamble — 8. 


Offense:  Disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
CHARGE  IL 

That  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  heing  a  minister  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  has,  in  contra- 
vention of  his  vows  of  loj-alty  to  the  distinctive  government 
and  discipline  of  the  Presbyteriati  Church,  and  for  the  pub- 
licly avowed  purpose  of  carrying  into  practical  efi'ect  the 
doctrines,  principles,  and  views  specified  under  Cliarge  I, 
been  instrumental  in  advising,  promoting,  and  encouraging 


[38] 

the  new  anti-denominational  association  of  the  "  Union 
Christian  Churches  of  America;"  and,  also,  the  new  anti- 
denominational  organization  at  Linwood  and  Mount  Look- 
out, founded  on  these  doctrines,  principles,  and  views,  his 
course  herein  being,  if  generally  allowed,  totally  subversive 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  of  its 
very  existence  as  a  distinctive  denomination. 

This  Charge  rests  upon  the  following  specifications, 
to  wit : 

SPECIFICATION   I. 

General  Association. 

As  to  the  "  Union  Christian  Churches  of  America." — In 
this,  that  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  during  certain  years  last 
past,  has  advocated  and  promoted  the  new  anti-denomi- 
national association  of  independent  "  Union  Christian 
Churches  of  America,"  b}''  editing  the  "Christian  Unity" 
in  Cincinnati,  by  lecturing  at  large  upon  the  subject  of  or- 
ganic union,  by  issuing  an  "  Address  to  all  the  Christian 
ministers  and  churches  in  !North  America  with  a  Basis  of 
Union,"  by  joining  himself  to  this  Association,  calling  upon 
all  in  sympathy  with  the  new  movement  to  adopt  the  basis, 
enroll  themselves  in  the  new  association,  send  delegates  to 
attend  its  annual  conventions,  and  to  advocate  the  peculiar 
principles  of  organic  union. 

Proof  1. — The  first  editorial  of  the  Christian  Unity,  pub- 
lished by  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  Vol.  I,  Ko.  1,  Cincinnati, 
November  8,  1873..  Also,  the  three  first  editorials  of  the 
Christian  Unity  (resumed),  published  by  its  three  joint  ed- 
itors, Revs.  W.  B.  Wellons,  D.  D.,  Thos.  J.  Melish,  and  W. 
C.  McCune,  at  Sufiblk,  Va.,  and  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  August 
1, 1875. 

Proof  2. — See,  under  Charge  I,  Specification  V,' the  quo- 
tations in  Proofs  2,  3,  6. 

Proof  3.— Christian  Unity,  December,  1873,  p.  4:  "  The 
editor  of  this  paper  has  for  eighteen  or  twenty  years  pro- 
posed, that  when  it  should  seem  evident  that  a  fit  time  had 
come,  he  would  devote  himself  to  the  advocacy  of  the  vis- 


[39] 

ible  unity  of  all  true  Christians.  And  he  has  always  sup- 
posed that  the  most  efficient  instrumentalities  for  furthering 
Christian  Union  were  public  oral  addresses  and  the  press. 
And  when  he  began,  on  the  eighth  of  November,  to  issue 
this  i)aper,  he  at  tlie  same  time  began  to  deliver  lectures  on 
the  subject  of  Christian  Unity.  And  now,  by  request,  he 
will  give  a  brief  account  of  this  part  of  his  work.  He  has 
spoken  at  Butler,  and  Boston,  and  ISTewport,  in  Kentucky; 
and  in  Groshen  and  South  Salem,  nnd  at  Parrot's  School- 
house,  and  Linden,  and  in  Springfield  and  Urbana,  at  Buck 
Creek  Church,  and  in  New  Richmond  and  Hillsboro',  in 
Ohio;  and  on  last  Saturday'  evening  he  spoke  at  Madison, 
near  Middletown  ;  on  Sabbath  morning  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  in  Middletown,  of  which  Rev.  J.  W.  Clokey 
is  pastor;  on  Sabbath  afternoon  in  a  school-house  near  the 
village  of  Astoria;  on  Sabbath  evening  in  Jacksonburg,  in 
the  church  of  which  Rev.  J.  Ernerick  is  pastor;  and  on 
Monday  evening  in  the  Baptist  Church  in  Middletown,  of 
which  Rev.  Mr.  Booth  is  pastor.  In  all,  he  has  spoken  in 
eighteen  different  places." 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  304  (8),  44  (ii,  v),411  (3,4,  6),  399 
(vii,  3),  57,  54  (3),^55  (12,  2  and  13  6),  93  (10),  95  (32, 1),  96. 
Baird's  Digest,  626,  630,  631,  638,  648,  651,  686,  692. 
Moore's  Digest,  122,  123.     Baird's  Digest,  704. 

Note. 

[Presb3'tery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  not  sus- 
tain this  specification.     The  vote  was  :    ■ 

Not  siist'tined. — Caton,  Ritchie,  Camp,  Dudley,  Beecher, 
Kumler,  Maxwell,  Chidlaw,  James,  Chester,  Hawley, 
Morey,  Jones,  White,  Monfort,  Morris,  Evans,  Schwenk, 
Johnston,  MeGechan,  Hyudman,  Dallas,  Mansfield,  Ken- 
nett.  Conn — 25. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,Long,  Babbitt,  West,  Winness, 
Potter— 6. 

Sustained  in  part. — Rossiter,  Cortelyou,  Leonard,  Cash- 
man,  Wright,  Hill,  Gamble— 7.] 


[40] 


SPECIFICATION   II. 

Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout. 

As  to  the  Organizatio7i  of  the  Linwood  and  3lount  Lookout 
Church. — In  this,  that  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCiine  actively  co- 
operated in  organizing,  and  desired  to  organize,  and  agreed 
with  others  to  organize  before  and  daring  N(wember,  1875, 
for  the  avowed  purpose  of  putting  into  practice  hisOrganic 
Union  principles,  the  new  organization  at  Linwood  and  Mt. 
Lookout,  preparing  and  commending  to  the  public  tiie 
Declaration  and  Preliminary  Statemeiits  accompanjdng  its 
Basis  of  Fellowship,  thus  promoting  a  new  society  which 
receives  all  Christians,  whether  dismissed  or  undismissed, 
and  all  evangelical  ministers  without  exception,  provides 
for  the  examination  of  candidates  for  the  ministry,  and  for 
sending  forth  ministers  to  preach  the  gospel  ;  and  has  joined 
himself  hereto,  accepting  a  call  and  becoming  its  first  pas- 
tor, being  examined  in  theology  and  installed  by  an  irre- 
sponsible, because  undelegated.  Council,  and  all  this  without 
leave  of,  or  dismission  from  his  Presbytery,  and  against 
advice  to  the  contrary,  and  is,  at  present,  pastor  of  said 
society. 

Proof  1. — As  to  the  organization  of  Linwood  and  Mt. 
Lookout  Church — Declaration,  Basis,  Candidates,  Ministry 
— see,  under  Charge  I,  Specification  V,  the  quotations  in 
Proofs  2,  4,  5. 

Proof  2. — Joined  himself  to  this  Society.  Commercial, 
February  8, 1876  :  "  I  pass  on  to  direct  attention  to  the  fact 
that  Dr.  Skinner's  article  abounds  in  naked  assertions.  He 
says  :  *  The  L.  and  Mt.  L.  Society  has  no  ordained  ofiicers 
of  any  kind  whatever,'  etc.  Does  he  deny  that  /  am  an 
officer,  then,  or  does  he  den}'  my  ordination  ?     Which?" 

Proof  3. — Time  of  Organization.  Basis  of  Fellowship, 
p.  13.  The  distinctive  title,  "  Union  Christian  Church  at 
Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout."  Again,  Collateral  N'o.  2, 
of  Presbytery's  Investigating  Committee's  Report:  "The 
Church  was  organized  November  8  and  10, 1875."     Again, 


[41] 

Herald  and  Presbj^ter,  January  5,  1876  :  "  The  Church  was 
established  or  organized  at  Llnwood,  November  7,  and  at 
Mt.  Lookout  November  8."  Again,  The  Presbyterian, 
February  26, 1876  :  "This  organization  was  completed  No- 
vember 24, 1875.  The  Rev.  Mr.  McCune,  7iow  its  pastor,  was 
present  at  the  meeting,  but  did  not  act  officially.  '  He  acted 
merely  in  the  capacity  of  a  Christian,  desiring  that  such  or- 
ganization might  be  effected,  liis  position  as  a  minister  only 
giving  him  somewhat  greater  prominence  in  the  matter  than  any 
other  of  the  brethren'  Thus  testifies  one  of  the  members  of 
the  Church."  Again,  Gazette,  January  24,  1876:  "I  ac- 
cepted the  invitation  to  preach  at  Linwood  and  Mount 
Lookout  a  year  before  the  Union  Church  was  organized, 
but  it  was  mutually  agreed  that  we  should  look  toward  the 
organization  of  a  Union  Church."  Again,  see,  under 
Charge  I,  Specification  V,  the  Proof  5.  Again,  Collateral 
No.  4,  p.  3  :  "  I  did  approve  of  the  movement,  and  after 
they  had  sent  for  me  to  preach  for  them,  I  counseled  and 
co-operated  with  those  who  did  organize  this  Church." 

P:^oor  4.— The  Presbyterian,  February  26, 1876  :  "  It  has 
been  charged  that  this  Church,  at  its  organization,  received 
persons  as  members  who  were  still  members  of  other 
Churches  and  without  letters.  The  fact  is,  that  several  of 
these  persons  were  Baptists  or  Episcopalians.  It  was  taken 
for  granted  that,  in  their  case,  to  apply  for  letters  would  be 
useless.  A  few  were  Presbyterians.  These  persons  should 
doubtless  have  pursued  a  more  orderly  course.  Their  com- 
ing with  the  rest  on  profession  was  an  irregularity."  *  * 
"  It  has  been  charged  that  Mr.  McCune  was  a  member  of 
the  Presb3'tery  of  Cincinnati  at  the  time  of  his  installation 
over  this  Church,  and  that  he  had  never  asked  the  permis- 
sion of  his  Presbytery  to  form  these  new  relations.  Such 
is  the  fact,  and  here  is  another  irregularity." 

Proof  5. — Accepting  a  call  and  being  installed.  Collat- 
eral No.  3,  p.  2  :  "  In  the  second  place,  the  Church  further 
requested  the  Council  to  instal  as  its  pastor  the  Rev.  AV.  C. 
McCune,  who  had  been  unanimously  called  to  that  office." 
Again,  Collateral  No.  4,  pp.  1,2:  "I  have  accepted  the  pas- 
torate  of   the  Union    Christian   Church  at   Linwood    and 


[42] 

Mount  Lookout."  Again,  Collateral  l^o.  4,  p.  4  :  "  J  have 
violated  no  Presbyterian  law  whatever  in  accepting  wy  present 
pastorate,  nor  in  anything  I  have  done  pertaining  to  the 
Union  Christian  Church  of  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout.  If 
there  is  any  Presbyterian  law  requiring  a  minister  to  first 
gain  the  consent  of  his  Presbytery  before  accepting  a  pas- 
torate outside  of  Presbyterian  jurisdiction,  I  have  no  knowl- 
edge of  it."  Again,  The  Presbyterian,  February  12,  1876  : 
"Has  a  Presbyterian  minister  a  right  to  accept  a  }yastorate 
outside .  Presbyterian  jurisdiction  ?  Any  petty  question 
about  the  formality  of  first  asking  leave  may  interest  hair- 
splitting ecclesiastical  lawyers,  whose  vocation  it  is  to  tithe 
mint,  anise,  and  cummin.  If  Presbytery  says  the  thing  done 
is  right,  1  will  be  content.  If  she  says  I  should  have  first 
asked  leave,  1  vnll  plead  ignorance  and  indifference.'"  "And 
has  he  a  right  to  advocate  such  Union,  as  I  do?  This 
might  have  been  a  fair  question  eight  or  ten  years  ago,  in  my 
case,  but  it  is  certainly  too  late  now" 

Proof  6. — The  Council,  Examination,  and  Installation, 
Collateral  No.  3,  p.  1 :  "  The  Council  was  composed  of  ten 
ministers,  connected  with  four  evangelical,  denominations. 
Letters  of  sympathy  were  received  from  several  others,  who 
for  various  reasons  were  .unable  to  be  present.  Those  in 
attendance  were  not  delegated  by  any  ecclesiastical  bodies,  but 
came  simply  as  indinduals  upon  the  invitation  of  the 
Church,  in  accordance  with  a  familiar  Congregational 
usage.  They  consequently  did  not  assume,  in  any  sense, 
to  represent  their  respective  denominations,  but  acted  en- 
tirely on  their  own  responsibility  as  Christian  men."  Again, 
Gazette,  December  17,  1875:  "After  a  full  examination  as 
to  his  doctrinal  soundness,  and  his  motive  in  undertaking 
the  pastoral  oflice  in  connection  with  this  Church,  it  was 

'■'•PesoUed,  That  we  recognize  in  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune  an 
intelligent  and  thoughtful  expositor  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
a  reliable  teacher  on  all  vital  points  of  doctdne,"  etc.,  etc. 

"  The  installation  of  Eev.  W.  C.  McCune  took  place  at 
half-past  seven  o'clock,  in  Linwood  Hall,  before  a  large 
number  of  citizens  of  Linwood,  according  to  the  programme 
adopted  at  the  Council  in  the  afternoon." 


[43] 

Proof  7. — Against  advice.  Letter  of  Rev,  Thomas  H. 
Skinner  to  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune: 

Cincinnati,  December  11,  1875. 
Rev.  W.  C.  McCuNE  : 

31y  dear  Brother — Your  invitation  to  me,  to  take  part 
with  others  in  the  recognition  of  the  "  Union  Christian 
Church,"  at  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  reached  me  this 
morning.  I  must  decline  its  acceptance.  My  reasons  for 
so  doing  lean  not  now  state  in  detail;  yet  a  few  things  I 
will  say,  which,  I  think,  will  sufficiently  reveal  my  views. 
I  am  a  Presbyterian  minister,  and  owe  my  standing  and 
protection  to  the  Presbyterian  organization.  I  received 
ordination,  and  have  retained  it,  because  I  solemnly  and 
publicly  received  and  adopted  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  approved  of  the  Government  and  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  these  United  States, 
and  promised  to  be  zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining  the 
purity  and  peace  of  said  Church.  I  do  not  think  that  by 
taking  part  in  the  services  to  which  I  am  invited,  I  would 
evince  either  zeal  or  fidelity  in  maintaining  the  purity  and 
peace  or  the  unity  of  the  Church.  The  principles  involved 
in  your  organization  would,  if  I  understand  them,  be  de- 
structive of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  were  they  successfully 
and  generally  carried  out.  Marching  as  I  do  under  the 
banner  of  this  Church,  and  sacredly  pledged  as  I  am  to 
"  study  its  peace,  unit}'',  and  purity,"  I  can  not  reconcile  it 
with  my  conscience  or  sense  of  honor  to  put  my  imprimatur 
on  your  course  while  you  are  still  a  member  of  the  Presby- 
tery. Our  General  Assembly  has  declared  that  "it  is  not 
the  prerogative  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel  to  organize 
Churches  without  the  previous  action  of  some  Presbytery 
directing  or  permitting  it;''  the  exceptions  made  having  no 
reference  to  such  a  case  as  that  of  the  Linwood  Church. 
(Moore's  Digest,  p.  173.)  Had  I  thought  and  felt  as  you 
have  done  on  the  subject  of  Church  polity  and  creeds,  be- 
fore I  acted  in  the  organization  of  a  Church  iu  the  bounds  of 
the  Presbytery  and  yet  out  of  its  jurisdiction,  I  would  have 
dissolved  my  couuectiou  with  the  Presbytery,  and  so  have 


[44] 

been  released  from  my  vows  of  fealty  and  service  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  I  know  you  will  pardon  me  this  frank 
expression  of  my  views. 

Fraternally  yours, 

Thomas  H.  Skinner. 

Proof  8. — Pastor  now.  See  Minutes  of  the  General 
Assembly  for  1876,  p.  233.  Also,  Records  of  Presbytery  of 
Cincinnati,  Mt.  Auburn,  September  13,  1876. 

How  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Church  the  above 
is,  see  Moore's  Digest,  p.  173,  107  (1,  a),  57  (14),  409  (ix), 
416  (i,  ii);  107  {1,  b) ;  169  {S,c,d);  416  (i),  409  (ix);  417 
(iii);  418  (iv),  149  (10,  12) ;  616  (i),  619  (4). 

/ 

ITOTE. 

[Presbytery  voted  that  the  foregoing  proofs  did  sustain 
this  specification.     The  vote  was  : 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,Long,  Leonard,  West,  Winness, 
Potter,  Gamble — 7. 

Sustained  in  jjart. — Caton,  Rossiter,  Cortleyou,  Cushman, 
Babbitt,  Dudley,  Wright,  Maxwell,  Cliidlaw,  James,  Chester, 
Hawley,  Jones,  Hills,  Schweiik,  Dallas,  Kennett,  Conn — 18. 

Not  sustained. — Ritchie,  Camp,  Beecher,  Kumler,  Morey, 
White,  Monfort,  Evans,  Johnston,  McGechan,  Hyndman, 
Mansfield— 12.     Excused— Morris.] 


In  conclusion,  as  stated  in  the  preceding  Charges,  the 
views  and  course  of  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune  are  in  con- 
travention, to  wit : 

1.  Of  his  ministerial  vows.  Digest,  p.  410,  xii  (2),  (3), 
(4),  (6) ;  p.  399,  vii  (2),  (3),  (4).  Installation  of  Rev.  W.  C. 
McCune,  at  Lincoln  Park  Church.  See  Records  of  Pres- 
bytery. 

2.  Of  the  terms  of  the  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  Basis 
of  Union  adopted  by  the  Cincinnati  Presbytery  (O.  S.), 
Avondale.  See  Records  of  Cincinnati  Presbytery  (0.  S.), 
September  8,  1869.     Digest,  p.  91,  ii,  iii;  p.  92,  ii. 


[45] 

3.  Of  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune's  vote  adopting  said  Basis 
at  said  Presbytery.  See  Record  of  vote  iu  Cii)ciiitiati 
Presbytery  (O.  S.),  September  8,  1869. 

4.  Of  the  Basis  of  Union  adopted  by  the  whole  Presby- 
terian Church,  O.  S.  and  IST.  S.,  and  declared  adopted  in 
Joint  Convention  at  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  November,  12,  1869. 
See  Digest,  p.  95  (32),  (33),  p.  96  (33),  (34). 

Respectfully  submitted  by  the  Presbytery's  Committee  of 
Prosecution. 

Thomas  H.  Skinner, 
E.  D.  Ledyard, 
S.  J.  Thompson, 

Committee. 


Note  as  to  the  Charge. 

Presbytery  voted  that  neither  the  second  specification, 
which  it  did  sustain,  nor  any  of  the  proofs  under  either  of 
the  specifications,  the  first  of  which  it  did  not  sustain,  proved 
the  truth  of  the  matter  of  this  Charge.  'The  vote  was  the 
siinie  as  on  the  foregoing  Charge,  except  that  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Wright  voted  not  sustained,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Babbitt  voted 
sustained. 


SYNOPSIS  OF  THE  CASE. 

•  I.  The  two  general  Charges,  or  rather  one  Charge  in  two- 
fold form. 

II.  The  Specifications  under  each  Charge  to  support  the 
same. 

III.  The  Proofs  under  each  Specification. 

IV.  The  References  to  the  Standards  as  contravened  by 
Mr.  McCune's  teachings  and  course. 

V.  The  reference  to  the  ministerial  Yows  of  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune. 

YI.  The  Reference  to  the  adoption  of  the  Basis  of  Re- 
union, by  the  Whole  Presbyterian  Church,  the  Presbytery 
of  Cincinnati,  and  by  Mr.  McCune. 


OPENING   ARGUMENT 


FOR  THE  PROSECUTION, 


BY 


REV.    THOS.    H.    SKINNER. 


ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  PROSECUTION. 


May  it  jjlcase  the  Court,  3Iodcrator,  and  Brethren  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Cincinnati : 

The  Presbyterian  Church  is  a  foundation  not  to  be  de- 
stroyed. "  God  is  in  the  midst  of  her,  she  shall  not  be 
moved."  "  The  chariots  of  God  are  twenty  thousand,  even 
thousands  of  angels;  the  Lord  is  among  them  as  in  Sinai, 
in  the  holy  place.  Thou  hast  ascended  on  high,  thou  hast 
led  captivity  captive,  thou  hast  received  gifts  for  men,  yea, 
for  the  rebellious  also,  that  the  Lord  God  might  dwel- 
among  them."  Ps.  67:  17,  18.  "Wherefore  He  saith, 
when  He  ascended  up  on  high,  He  led  captivity  captive,  and 
gave  gifts  to  men.  And  He  gave  some,  apostles;  and  some, 
prophets;  and  some,  evangelists;  and  some,  pastors  and 
teachers;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  till  we 
all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,  nnto  the  measure  of 
the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ;  that  we  henceforth  be 
no  more  children,  tossed  to  and  fro,  and  carried  about  with 
every  wiiid  of  doctrine,  by  the  sleight  of  men  and  cunning 
craftiness,  whereby  they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive;  but,  speak- 
ing the  truth  in  love,  may  grow  up  into  Him  in  all  things, 
who  is  the  head,  even  Christ ;  from  whom  the  whole  body, 
fitly  joined  together,  and  compacted  by  that  which  every 
joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  effectual  working  in  the 
measure  of  every  part,  maketh  increase  of  the  body  unto 
the  edifying  of  itself  in  love."     Eph.  4  :  8,  11-17. 

Upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus 
Christ  liimself  being  the  chief  corner-stone,  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  has  built  her  house.  Her  historic  doctrine  and 
order,  written  by  a  divine  finger,  and  consecrated  by  the 

(49) 


[60] 

breath  of  inspiration,  baptized  witli  martyr- blood,  and 
tested  in  the  flame,  all  are  dear  to  us  beyond  any  earthly 
treasure.  He  that  toucheth  it,  toucheth  the  apple  of  our 
eye.  We  make  no  vain  boast,  crying,  "  The  temple  of  the 
Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord  are  we  !"  We  embrace  in  the 
spirit  of  Christian  charity  all  other  evangelical  denomina- 
tions, cliifering.frora  us  on  many  points  and  in  many  ways. 
But  what  we  do  hold  as  distinctive  and  peculiar,  we  en- 
grave on  our  hearts  and  unfold  on  our  Presbyterian  banner, 
not  ashamed  to  maintain  that  it  is  the  truth  of  God,  nor 
backward  to  defend  it  against  every  assault,  whether  from 
friendly  foes  without,  or  feigned  friends  within. 

Therefore,  in  the  name  of  "  The  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,"  whose  constitution  and 
whose  law^s  have  been  assailed,  traduced,  despised — whose 
honor  has  been  wounded,  name  denied,  and  peace  and 
unity  and  purity  disturbed,  does  the  prosecution,  advanced, 
by  your  order,  to  its  high  responsibility,  come  into  the  court 
of  this  Presbytery  to  vindicate  the  doctrine  and  the  rights 
of  said  church  against  the  erroneous  teaching  and  the  rev- 
olutionary course  of  the  defendant  impleaded  at  your  bar. 
This  is  "judicial  process."  The  question  is.  Ham  we  a 
"  right  to  exist  f 

The  case  before  us  is  of  no  ordinary  importance.  Its 
gravity  outweighs  that  of  all  other  cases  put  together, 
throughout  the  whole  period  of  the  history  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  It  involves,  not  only  the  truth  of  her  fun- 
damental doctrines,  but  the  foundation  also  of  her  whole 
ecclesiastical  edifice,  with  the  structure  itself  built  thereon. 
In  other  cases,  the  most  that  has  been  put  in  question  by 
any  of  her  sons  has  beeu  some  _ special  phases  of  some 
special  doctrines,  or  some  particulars  of  polity.  This,  puts 
in  question  her  very  right  to  hold  distinctive  doctrines,  her 
very  right  to  build  her  Presbyterian  house.  The  issues 
raised  by  the  defendant,  contemplate  no  less  an  outcome,  in 
the  future,  than  the  overthrow  of  her  whole  superstructure, 
and  the  tearing  up  of  her^whole  foundation  as  a  distinctive 
denomination,  and  the  re-organization  of  the  Presbyterian 
and  all   other  denominations  after  the  pattern  of  the  new- 


[  51  ] 

born  institute  at  Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout.  Iler  Pres- 
byterian organization,  government,  discipline,  creed,  de- 
nominational enactments,  her  ordinances,  terms  of  fellow- 
ship and  ministry,  her  vows  of  ordination,  covenant,  and 
right  to  live — all  are  put  in  question.  "  The  form  of  the 
house  and  the  fashion  thereof,  and  the  goings-out  thereof, 
and  the  comings-in  thereof,  and  all  the  laws  thereof — upon 
the  top  of  the  mountain,  the  whole  limit  thereof,  round- 
about"— the  absolute  "  law  of  the  house" — all  is  called  in 
question.  That  apostolic  pattern  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
which  reforminof  hands  have  saved  from  travesties  and  de- 
formations  of  fifteen  hundred  years,  and  summoned  to  a 
new  exhibition  at  the  call  of  the  reforming  angel,  "  Rise, 
and  measure  the  temple  of  God,  and  the  altar,  and  them 
that  worship  therein" — the  gospel  church,  its  miuistr}^  its 
doctrines,  ordinances,  fellowship,  and  form — must  now  be 
substituted  by  a  new  pattern  shown  in  Mount  Lookout 
towering  over  Horeb,  higher  than  the  new  Jerusalem  !  The 
symbols  of  Westminster,  last  and  ripest  fruit  of  eighteen 
hundred  years  of  conflict,  gathering  to  themselves  the  truth 
upon  the  doctrine  and  the  order  of  the  house  of  God,  must 
be  remanded  to  the  dust  of  mediseval  manuscripts,  the  dingy 
alcoves  of  some  old  monastery,  or,  like  Ephesian  books  of 
sorcery,  be  committed  to  the  fire  to  p^lease  the  "spirit  of 
the  age,"  the  tone  and  temper  of  "  organic  union." 

To  the  advocacy  of  such  liberalism  as  this,  have  we  come 
within  a  semi-decade  from  the  date  of  our  reunion.  Its 
toleration  was  impossible  for  thirty  years  last  past  in  either 
branch.  After  long  struggle  to  reach,  some  authoritative 
declaration  upon  a  subject  of  such  vast  importance  to  the 
Church,  this  Court  is  here  convened  at  last  judicially  to  say 
whether  the  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  basis  of  our  com- 
mon standards,  upon  which  the  reunion  was  effected,  shall 
endure,  respected  by  our  officers  and  people,  or  whether 
the  Presbyterian  denomination,  as  such,  is  a  foundation  to 
be  destroyed  for  the  sake  of  organic  union.  The  Presby- 
terian Church  asserts  her  scriptural  authority,  that  is,  her 
divine  right  to  exist,  precisely  as  she  is  to-day,  under  her 
distinctive  standards  as  a  separate  denomination,  protected 


[52] 

by  her  own  denominational  enactments  and  pledged  to  the 
enforcement  of  her  doctrine  and  discipline.  The  defendant, 
a  member  of  this  Presbytery,  asserts  a  counter-claim  no 
less  than  this,  that  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  as  snch, 
like  all  other  evangelical  denominations,  built  upon  distinc- 
tive creeds,  has  no  right  whatever  to  exist,  but  should  de- 
sist at  once  from  the  enforcement  of  her  distinctive  doctrines 
and  her  order,  and  plant  herself  upon  organic  union  ground. 
Such  is  the  issue  plainly  put,  clear  and  unmistakable. 

The  charges  and  specifications  presented  by  the  pros- 
ecution are  in  your  hands.  They  speak  for  themselves. 
The  general  charge,  in  twofold  form,  is  disloyalt}'  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  contravention  of  ordination  vows. 
The  specifications  support  the  charges.  The  proofs  support 
the  specifications.  The  law  points  are  appended  to  evince 
the  fact  that  what  is  charged  is  an  offense  against  the 
peace,  the  unity,  and  tlie  purity  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  a  violation  of  the  ordination  vows.  The 
prosecution  call  for  the  reading  of  the  specifications  seria- 
tim, leaving  the  general  charge,  in  its  twofold  form,  to  be 
read  at  the  close  of  the  argument. 

SPECIFICATION   I. 

Law  of  Organization. 
I  proceed  to  consider  Specification  first.  Mr.  McCune 
asserts  "  the  divine  law  of  organization,"  the  law  of  organic, 
visible  Christian  union,  is  tersely  and  comprehensively 
stated  in  Pom.  xv,  7:  "AVherefore  receive  ye  one  another, 
as  Christ  has  received  us,  to  the  glory  of  God."  Nothing 
is  clearer  than  that  this  text  relates  wholly  to  personal 
Christian  fellowship  and  spiritual  communion  among  those 
who  were  already  members  of  the  church  at  Rome,  but 
among  whom  internal  dissensions  or  schisms  in  the  body 
had  arisen  on  account  of  meats  and  drinks,  festivals  and 
ceremonies.  It  is  the  conclusion  of  an  argument  on  things 
indifferent,  commenced  in  chapter  xiv,  1:  "Him  that  is 
weak  in  the  faith  {i.  e.  in  moral  conviction  as  to  duty  in 
the  premises,  for  this  is  the  meaning  of  ^pistis'  here)  re- 
ceive ye,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputations."  The  word 
translated  "receive"  (proslaiyibanesthe),  the  same  word  used 


[53] 

Rom.  XV,  7,  occurs  twelve  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  signifies  (1)  taking  nourishment,  and  (2)  personal  com- 
panionship and  friendship.  The  "weak  brother"  is  a 
church  member,  already  troubled  with  scruples  of  con- 
science, for  this  is  the  use  of  the  term  '^  adelphos"  in  the 
whole  argument.  "  Take  to  your  heart"  and  "treat  kindly" 
your  "  weak  brother," — not  weak  in  the  personal  trust  or 
saving  faith  of  his  heart  toward  Christ,  but  weak  in  moral 
casuistry,  or  cases  of  conscience,  destitute  as  to  a  true  con- 
viction of  what  is  morally  permissible  or  not  permissible, 
under  the  law  of  Christ,  to  do  or  not  to  do.  The  question 
in  debate  was  not  as  to  the  organization  of  the  Christian 
church  nor  as  to  terms  of  admission  to  membership,  though 
it  is  a  legitimate  inference  that  difterences  about  things  in- 
different are  not  to  be  made  grounds  of  exclusion  or  non- 
reception,  nor  as  to  external  visible  oneness,  nor  as  to  denom- 
inations, nor  as  to  church-union,  nor  as  to  terms  of  ministerial 
fellowship,  nor  as  to  ecclesiastical  courts.  All  this  is  not  ex- 
egesis, but  eisegesis — a  pure  gratuitous  importation  into 
the  text.  It  was  not  a  question  as  to  the  admission  of 
members  into  the  church,  but  wholly  as  to  the  fellowship 
of  members  already  admitted — that  is,  the  receiving  "  o?ie 
another''  to  mutual  personal  Christian  communion,  and  ter- 
minating strife,  alienation,  and  profitless  disputation  con- 
cerning things  indifferent.  The  "weak"  were  not  to  slan- 
der those  who  were  "strong"  in  moral  conviction  of  duty ; 
the  "strong''  were  not  to  despise  the  "weak."  It  was  a 
question  of  fraternal  relations  purely,  among  brethren  in 
the  same  house,  not  of  organic  union  hetw^een  members  of 
different  organizations.  It  was  the  adiaphoristic  contro- 
versy of  the  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century,  waged  in 
the  apostolic  age — a  controversy  renewing  itself  in  every 
period,  more  or  less,  in  the  church  of  Christ,  as  to  things 
indifferent;  i.  e.,  neither  ^'arjatha,"  nor  '■'■  kaka,"  but  ^'adia- 
phora,"  neither  per  se  right  nor  per  se  wrong,  but  either 
right  or  wrong  per  accidens,  or  according  to  circumstances 
— a  question  the  most  difficult  of  all  in  Christian  morals. 
Paul's  argument  is  a  final  arbitration  of  the  whole  dispute. 
Every  man  must  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind,  for 


[54] 

"whatsoever  is  not  of  conviction  is  sin."  We  must  abstain 
from  action  if  we  conscientiously  entertain  any  doubt  as  to 
the  rectitude  of  our  course.  Where  no  objective  precept 
exists,  the  subjective  persuasion  of  tlie  believer  is  the  rule 
of  action,  and  on  this  each  one  stands  or  falls  to  his  Master. 
''Wherefore,"  sa3's  the  apostle,  concluding  the  whole  argu- 
ment, "take  to  your  hearts  one  another,  as  Christ  also  has 
taken  us,  to  the  glory  of  God."  Lay  aside  all  wrangling, 
and  bitterness,  and  wrath,  and  slander,  and  contempt,  Jew" 
and  Gentile,  be  reconciled  to  each  other,  in  the  unity  of  the 
spirit  and  bond  of  peace,  even  as  Christ  has  reconciled  us 
to  himself,  and  God  has  been  glorified. 

By  what  right  of  interpretation,  diverting  the  passage 
from  its  context  and  sense,  does  Mr.  McCune  apply  to 
things  essential,  a  precept  the  Holy  Ghost  applies  only  to 
things  indifferent,  or  conclude  tljat  evangelical  denomina- 
tions, as  such,  are  essential!}"  sinful,  and  that  the  Presbyte- 
rian denomination,  with  the  rest  of  them,  has  no  scriptural 
right  to  exist?  Rom.  xv,  7,  is  his  main  and  oft -repeated 
text.  He  finds  in  it  what  he  calls  a  "divine,  non-excluding 
law  of  organization."  In  the  first  place,  it  has  no  reference 
to  "  organization"  whatever.  In  the  next  place,  even  if  it 
had,  the  non-exclusion  hp-s  reference  to  things  merely  in- 
diferent,  but  no  reference  to  things  essential  which  belong 
to  organization.  The  church  may  not  exclude  an  appli- 
cant, who  thinks  he  has  a  right,  if  he  chooses,  to  eat  meat 
or  drink  wine  offered  to  idols;  but  it  is  a  preposterous  in- 
ference that  slie  may  not  exclude  an  applicant  who  refuses 
to  be  bound  by  Christ's  command  as  to  baptism,  the  Lord's 
supper,  and  obedience  to  the  discipline  of  the  eldership,  or 
who  does  not  believe  that  Christ  is  truly  man,  or  the  Bible 
truly  infallible.  The  sophisms  of  the  interpretation  are 
glaring.  Mr.  McCnne  confounds  internal  relations  of  per- 
sonal Christian  fellowship  with,  external  organization,  Chris- 
tian unity  with  church  union,  the  spiritual  with  the  eccle- 
siastical, the  inner  substance  with  the  outward  form,  unity 
from  within  with  union  from  without,  essential  terms  of  ad- 
mission to  membership,  with  rules  of  conduct  for  members 
already  admitted  concerning  things  indifl'erent,  unity  with 


[55] 

union,  and  the  word  of  God  in  relation  to  things  about 
which  differences  are  no  bar  to  membership  with  the  word 
of  God  in  relation  to  things  about  which  differences  are  a 
bar  to  membership.  Conscience  as  to  meats  offered  to  idols, 
wines,  ceremonies,  festivals,  and  social  parties,  is  certainly 
a  very  different  thing  from  conscience  as  to  prelacy  and 
independency,  elders  and  no  elders,  creed  and  no  creed, 
baptism  and  no  baptism,  the  covenant  of  God  with  believ- 
ers, terms  of  ministerial  fellowship,  and  whether  an  un- 
baptized  person  may  be  admitted  to  church  membership 
and  come  to  the  Lord's  supper.  "Would  Paul  treat  these 
last  matters  as  things  indifferent,  and  class  them  in  the  same 
category  wdth  the  first?  Would  he  tell  us  to  drop  our 
differences  as  to  essential  things  for  the  sake  of  organic 
union,  and  act  in  reference  to  matters  concerning  which  he 
has  laid  down  the  most  authoritative  and  unbending  rules 
and  precepts,  as  though  we  were  left  here  to  subjective 
persuasion  as  the  only  law  in  the  case?  Truth  is  worth 
something,  worth  more  than  all  outward  church  union  ; 
and  the  head  of  the  Church,  the  builder  of  his  own  house, 
will  split  an  indifferent  external  church  union,  making  an 
idol  of  her  boasted  uniformity,  into  a  thousand  fragments, 
to  find  one  that  will  be  loyal  to  his  truth.  He  has  done  it 
more  than  once,  and  will  do  it  again.  By  what  right  does 
Mr.  McCune  ground  the  law  of  church  organization  in  a 
text  relating  wholly  to  things  indifferent  f  Are  the  order 
of  the  house  of  God,  its  structure,  ordinances,  government 
and  discipline,  its  officers  and  constitution,  matters  of  in- 
difference f  Are  ministers  of  every  kind,  because  deemed 
evangelical  according  to  some  minimum  standard  of  texts 
nakedly  quoted  and  differently  interpreted,  and  adjudged 
to  be  called  to  the  ministry,  some  by  one  text,  some  by  an- 
other, all  to  be  received  into  one  common  ecclesiastical 
court  as  ministers  of  Christ?  As  to  private  members,  does 
a  "  credible"  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  bind  the  church  to 
admit  a  professor  who  refuses  to  obey  the  command  of 
Christ  to  be  baptized?  Is  our  expedienc}'  to  set  at  naught 
Christ's  authority?  Or,  again,  is  the  church  restrained 
from  exclusion,  except   upon   evidence  of  unregeueracy  ? 


[56] 

Or  does  she  enjoy  the  right  to  admit  in  a  case  of  disobedi- 
ence to  Christ's  command  ?  And  yet  such  is  the  exegesis 
of  Rom.  XV,  7,  by  Mr.  McCune. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  condemns  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
McCune.     She  denies,  outright  and  officially,  his  interpre- 
tation of  Romans  xv :  7,  upon  which  he  builds  his  theory. 
As  to  her  reception  of  members,  I  shall  discuss  the  question 
further  on.     As  to  the  application  of  Romans  xv  :  7,  to  the 
reception  of  ministers,  she  says.  Digest,  p.  45  (2) :  although 
"  we  are  willing  to  receive  one  another,  as  Christ  has  received 
lis,  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  admit  to  fellowship  in  sacred  or- 
dinances all  such  as  we  have  grounds  to  believe  Christ  will  at 
last  admit  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  yet  ive  are  undoubtedly 
obliged  to  take  care  that  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  be 
kept  pure  and  uncorrupted  among  us,  and  so  handed  down  to 
our  posterity."     So,  again,  she  declares,  while  thus  asserting 
her  riffht  to  exclude  from  her  ecclesiastical  courts  all  min- 
isters  who  can  not  hold  the  truth  as  she  holds  it,  that  "the 
terms  of  communion  adopted  in  our  church  have  ever  been 
in  accordance  with  the  divine  command  that  we  should  re- 
ceive   one  another  as  Christ  has  received  us.     We   fully 
recognize  the  authority  of  the  command  "  Him  that  is  weak 
in  the  faith  receive  ye,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputations." 
The  application  of  this  conmiand  is  entirely  confined  to  private 
membership  in  the  Church.    It  has  no  reference  to  the  admission 
of  men  to  ojfices  in  the  house  of  God,  or  to  the  qualifications  for 
admission  into  the  office  of  the  ministry.'^     She  asserts  her 
perfect  right  "  to  declare  the  terms  of  admission  into  her 
communion,  and  th.e    qualification   of    her  ministers    and 
members,  as  well  as  the  whole  system  of  internal  govern- 
ment which  Christ  has  appointed."    Digest,  p.  44  (2).    She 
"  enjoins  on  all  her  members  and  probationers  for  the  min- 
istry that  they  teach  and  preach  according  to  the  form  of 
sound  words  in  said  confession  and  catechisms,  and  avoid 
and  oppose  all   contrary  errors  thereto'."     Digest,  p.  48  (1). 
She  refuses  to  "  license  or  ordain  to  the  work  of  the  min- 
istry any  candidate,  until  he  give  them  competent  satisfac- 
tion as  to  his  learning  and  experimental  acquaintance  with 
religion,  and  skill  in  divinity  and  cases  of  conscience  ;  and 


[57] 

(declare  his  acceptance  of  the  "Westminster  Confession  and 
Catechisms  as  the  confession  of  his  faith,  and  promise  sub- 
jection to  the  Presbyterian  plan  of  government  in  the  "West- 
minster Directory."  Digest,  p.  49  (6).  She  demands  of  all 
her  officers,  deacons,  elders,  and  ministers,  by  most  solemn 
ordination  vows,  that  they  "sincerely  adopt"  and  "ap- 
prove" her  standards.  Digest,  pp.  346,  399,  411.  She 
declares  that  her  Confession  of  Faith  is  not  only  "  neces- 
sary and  expedient,"  but  "absolutely  requisite  to  the  settled 
peace  of  the  Church,  and  to  the  happy  and  orderly  exist- 
ence, of  Christian  communion;"  and  subjects  to  discipline 
any  in  her  communion  who  "traduce"'  it.  Digest,  p.  54 
(11).  Ministers  who  can  not  adopt  her  standards  she  will 
not  receive.  Digest,  p.  57.  Those  who  are  hostile  to  creeds 
and  confessions  she  rejects.  D'igest,  p.  55.  She  requires 
those  who  change  their  doctrinal  views  to  "  peaceably 
withdraw."  Digest,  p.  48  (11).  Ministers  who  come  to  her 
from  other  denominations,  she  enjoins  "  to  teach  in  the 
manner  required  by  our  standards."  Digest,  p.  148.  Those 
who  "  withdraw  to  other  denominations  "  she  commands 
to  be  "  stricken  from  the  roll."  Digest,  pp.  169,  620. 
"  Churches"  that  refuse  to  be  organized  according  to  her 
principles  of  government,  she  will  not  receive.  Digest,  pp. 
92  (2),  63  (2).  She  will  unite,  ecclesiastically,  with  none, 
except  on  the  basis  of  her  Westminster  standards,  and 
would  only  reunite  her  own  divisions  on  the  same  basis, 
pure  and  simple.  Digest,  pp.  45,  48,  58,  61,  62,  71,  91.  Her 
whole  organic  constitution  she  asserts  to  be  "  agreeable  to 
Scripture  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Christians." 
Digest,  p.  120.  And  makes  express  provision  that  her 
courts  shall  enforce  and  observe  "  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church."  She  "  strictly  enjoins  on  her  presbyteries  to 
"  promote  the  diffusion  and  wider  circulation  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Book  of  Discipline  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  ;"  recommends  her  congregations  to  "  supply  the 
poor  "  with  the  same  and  the  catechisms ;  and  urges  pastors 
to  "  induce  every  family  in  our  connection  to  supply  them- 
selves with  a  copy  of  the  Standards  of  our  Church."  Baird's 
Digest,  p.  45.     All  this  is  what  Mr.  McCune  calls  "  Presby- 


[  58  ] 

terian  sectarianism,"  a  "  hurtful  excrescence,"  and  to  be 
condemned.  The  "common  faith"  of  the  Church  of 
Christ  she  regards  as  something  more  than  the  minimum 
collation  of  a  few  texts,  undefined  by  modern  organic 
Unionists.  She  regards  it  as  the  consensus  of  the  symbols 
of  the  Reformation.  Digest,  pp.  56,  71.  Such  is  the  honor 
she  pours  upon  the  martyr-won  and  glorious  doctrinal 
banner  of  her  faith  and  order. 

In  reference  to  the  reception  of  private  Church  members, 
she  presumes  not  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  heart  of  any. 
She  requires  not  only  a  credible  profession  of  faith  in 
and  love  to  Christ,  but  also  some  proper  knowledge  of 
Christ,  of  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  supper,  and  pledge 
of  obedience  not  only  to  Christ  but  to  those  whom  lie 
has  set  to  rule  in  His  Church,  and  exercise  discipline  for 
their  spiritual  good.  These  are  her  terms  of  communion. 
Therefore,  without  judging  the  heart,  or  deciding  that  they 
are  without  faith  in  Christ,  she  refuses  to  admit  professed 
Universalists.  Digest,  674.  She  makes  it  a  question  of 
expediency,  to  be  determined,  in  all  cases,  by  the  session, 
whether  to  receive  those  who  object  to  the  baptism  of 
children,  or  those  who  are  connected,  in  any  way,  with  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors.  Digest,  pp. 
674,  675.  Those  who  pursue  any  secular  avocation  on  the 
Sabbath  are  not  to  be  admitted.  Digest,  p.  678.  They 
who  refuse  to  be  themselves  baptized,  or  to  pledge  submis- 
sion to  her  discipline,  she  forbids  an  entrance.  Digest,  pp. 
676,  677.  In  all  these  cases,  without  assuming  to  decide 
that  those  she  declines  to  receive  are  without  faith,  and  be- 
lieving in  some  cases  that  faith  may  exist,  she  asserts  her 
right  to  so  decline,  for  reasons  founded  on  the  word  of  God. 
It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  Presbj^terian  Church  does  ex- 
clude from  her  membership  certain  individuals  whose  per- 
sonal faith  in  Christ  she  does  not  assume  to  question,  and 
certain  ministers  whose  professed  acceptance  of  a  "  few 
leading  doctrines"  she  does  not  pretend  to  dispute.  She 
declares,  by  her  Supreme  Court,  that  Romans  xv:  7  does 
not  forbid,  as  Mr.  McCune  asserts  it  does  forbid,  such  ex- 
clusion from  her  own  pale.    She  affirms  that  she  is  "  entitled 


[69] 

to  declare  the  terms  of  admission  "  into  her  ecclesiastical 
communion,  and  the  "  qualilications  of  her  ministers  and 
members,"  and  that  her  terms  of  communion  have  always 
been  "  in  accordance  with  the  divine  conmiand  that  we 
should  receive  one  another  as  Christ  has  received  us" — that 
is  in  perfect  accordance  with  Romans  xv :  7.  Mr.  McCune 
tells  her  that  her  utterance  is  untrue.  She  declares  that 
terms  of  Church-membership  are  one  thing,  and  terras  of 
salvation  are  another,  and  that  every  church  has  the  right 
to  declare  its  own  terms,  and  that  in  some  respects  these 
may  be  different  from  each  other.  Mr.  McCune  denies 
this.  She  asserts  that  the  force  of  the  precept  in  Romans 
XV :  7  relates  wholly  to  things  indifferent — to  the  personal 
relations  of  private  members — and  that  it  has  no  reference 
to  ministerial  qualifications,  to  the  reception  or  exclusion  of 
ministers,  or  to  things  essential  to  organization,  such  as  a 
Divinely-established  order,  sacraments,  ordinances,  or  non- 
toleration  of  false  doctrine.  Mr.  McCune  tells  us  she  is 
blind.  He  is  in  complete  antagonism,  as  a  Presbyterian 
minister,  with  the  faith  and  order  of  his  Church  on  this 
whole  matter. 

And  as  to  the  excommunication  of  church  members,  the 
Presbyterian  Church  does  not  base  this  excommunication 
upon  the  judgment  that  they  are  unregenerate.  "  Gross 
ofi'enders  who  will  not  be  reclaimed  by  the  private  or  public 
admonitions  of  the  Church  are  to  be  cut  off,"  Christians  or 
no  Christians.  Digest  p.  513.  They  may  in  some  cases  be 
children  of  God  whom  only  such  punishment  can  be  the 
means  of  reclaiming  from  the  snare  of  Satan.  They  may 
be  children  of  the  wicked  one.  The  Church  does  not  decide. 
Enough,  that,  whether  from  ignorance,  pride,  perversity, 
temptation,  or  theories  of  church  power,  or  hostile  judg- 
ment, or  contumacy,  he  who  refuses  to  "  hear  the  Church," 
or  submit  to  her  discipline,  is  to  be  as  a  "  heathen  man  and 
a  publican.*'  The  authority  of  Christ's  house  is  to  be 
maintained.  The  Church,  without  sitting  in  judgment  on 
the  heart  of  any,  excludes  from  her  communion  those  guilty 
of  long  and  wilful  absence,  and  violation  of  solemn  covenant 
engagements.     Digest,  p.  494.     For  grossly  heretical  views 


[60] 

she  excommunicates.  Digest,  p.  128.  For  unlawful  divorce 
or  marriage,  and  for  breach  of  marriage  vows  by  wilful  ab- 
sence, which  she  accounts  a  breach  of  the  seventh  command- 
ment. Digest,  p.  494  Larger  Cat.  Q.  139.  Also  for  persist- 
ence in  improper  language  (p.  569),  for  slander,  fraud,  theft, 
neglect  of  the  Lord's  supper — in  short,  for  any  "gross 
offense,"  continued  against  the  admonition  of  the  Church. 
Pier  discipline  deals  with  conduct  alone.  It  demands  a  con- 
versation becoming  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  The  Presbyterian 
Church  believes  that  a  man  may  be  a  Christian  and  yet  be 
guilty  of  "  gross  ofienses,"  as  w^ere  Abraham  and  Lot, 
Jacob  and  Samson,  David  and  Peter.  For  such  offenses, 
unrepented  of,  excommunication  will  ensue.  Her  purity 
depends  upon  it.  She  has  no  infallible  term  of  admission, 
no  infallible  term  of  exclusion.  A  credible  profession  be- 
fore men  may  be  a  false  one  before  God.  An  excommu- 
nicated person  may  yet  be  regenerate,  though  delivered,  for 
the  time,  to  Satan.  Her  act  of  exclusion  from  membership 
does  not  depend  on  her  judgment  of  the  regeneracy  or  un- 
regeneracy  of  the  excluded.  Search  the  standards  from  be- 
ginning to  end.  ITot  a  clause  can  be  found  intimating  any 
such  doctrine  as  that  of  Mr.  Mc  Cane,  but  everything  to  the 
contrary.  Nowhere  does  the  Church  teach  that  excommu- 
nication proceeds  upon  the  assumption  or  proof  that  the 
ofi'ender  is  unregenerate.  Nor  does  the  Scripture,  to  which 
Mr.  McCune  appeals,  state,  in  any  case,  that  the  excom- 
municate either  was  or  was  not  a  Christian.  It  calls  him  a 
"  brother,"  that  is,  a  church  member,  for  that  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term  "  adelphos.''  There  is  no  proof  that  he  was 
not  a  Christian.  "Disorderly  walk"  is  no  more  a  proof — 
ipso  facto,  of  unregeneracy,  than  faultless  conduct  is  a  proof, 
ipso  facto,  of  holiness.  However  clear  may  be  the  gross 
inconsistency  between  disorderly  conduct  and  divine  grace, 
yet  it  is  a  humiliating  fact  that  some  of  God's  children  do 
lie,  and  slander,  and  deceive,  and  steal,  and  practice  in- 
justice, and  commit  grievous  crimes,  and  persist  for  a  long 
time  in  the  same,  and  give  occasion  to  the  enemies  of  God 
to  blaspheme.  While  it  is  true  that  the  court,  in  inflicting 
excommunication,  does  virtually  review  and  reverse  the 


[61] 

judgment  already  had  upon  the  qualifications  for  member- 
ship of  the  applicant  at  th,e  time  of  his  reception,  yet  it  is 
false  to  infer,  either  that  the  original  decision  to  receive 
settled  the  question  of  his  regeneracy,  or  that  its  reversal, 
hy  excommunication,  settles  the  question  of  his  unregeu- 
eracy.  All  that  it  does  settle  is  that,  as  it  was  only  upon  a 
credible  profession  of  faith  (not  credible  evidence  of  regen- 
eracy), he  could  be  received,  so  it  is  for  want  of  that 
credible  profession  he  is,  at  last,  excluded.  He  is  excluded 
because  of  the  existence  of  that  which,  had  it  appeared  at 
first,  would  have  prevented  his  immediate  reception.  It 
is  "  not  necessary  to  show"  that  the  apostles  excluded  real 
Christians,  before  the  Church  may  exclude  a  disorderly 
member.  Our  Book  recognizes  no  such  doctrine.  The 
theory  of  excommunication  advocated  by  Mr.  McCune  is 
a  legitimate  outgrowth  of  his  organic  union  principles.  It 
is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  standards  of  our  Church.  Our 
courts  judge  conduct.     God  alone  judges  the  heart. 

I  have  presented  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  McCune  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  standards.  Zenith  and  nadir  are  not  more 
opposed.  I  have  shown  the  falsity  of  his  interpretation  of 
Rom.  xv;7,  and  the  official  denial  of  that  interpretation  by 
the  General  Assembly,  twice  over — a  denial  fortified  by  the 
whole  frame-work- of  our  polity,  and  wrought  throughout 
the  whole  web  of  our  history.  On  Mr.  McCune's  theory 
our  standards  ought  to  be  burned  Tip,  our  whole  form  of 
government,  and  book  of  discipline,  their  structure,  cap- 
tions, and  provisions,  and  all  our  decisions  built  thereupon, 
destroyed,  for  all  are  utterly  irreconcilable  with  his  non- 
excluding  "  divine  law  of  organization."  When,  therefore, 
he  teaches  such  doctrine  and  propagates  such  views,  and 
calls  upon  Presbyterians  and  all  other  evangelical  Christians 
to  rally  for  a  reconstruction  of  the  whole  Church  of  Christ 
upon  his  Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout  basis,  the  prosecu- 
tion aflirms,  in  the  name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  that 
he  advocates  principles  and  views,  not  only  at  war  with  the 
standards  of  the  Church,  but  which,  if  generally  accepted, 
would  totally  subvert  our  constitution,  and  blot  out  the  very 
existence  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination  itself.     His  so- 


[62] 

called  '•  divine  law  of  organization  "  is  simply  a  misinter- 
pretation of  the  scripture.  • 

SPECIFICATION    II. 

Anti-denomination. 

I  proceed  to  the  second  specification.  In  it  Mr.  McCnne 
affirms  the  essential  sinfulness  of  all  evangelical  denomina- 
tions, as  such,  and  this  includes  the  Presbyterian  denomi- 
nation. JSTone  have  any  right  to  exist,  because  not  formed 
on  his  "  divine  law  of  organization."  "  The  Presbyterian 
Church  requires  more"  than  Mr.  McCune's  law  requires, 
and,  not  being  built  upon  this  law,  has  no  scriptural  right 
to  exist,  as  a  denomination.  The  Christianity  held  in  com- 
mon with  other  denominations  he  does  not  assail.  The 
distinctive  peculiarities  of  Presbyterianism,  in  her  doctrine 
and  polity,  all  that  differentiates  her  from  other  churches, 
and  the  teaching  which  she  enforces  upon  her  official  min- 
istry; in  brief,  her  distinctive  denominationalism,  he  con- 
demns as  "  sectarianism,"  "  essential!}'  sinful,"  "  an  excres- 
cence," "anti-scriptural,"  "  unscriptural,"  "mischievous," 
and  "  destitute  of  scriptural  authority."  He  is  opposed, 
utterly,  to  denominations  as  such.  They  are  "  sinful."  Of 
course,  if  this  is  the  fact,  the  quicker  they  are  done  away 
with,  the  better. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  does  not  so  believe.  She  re- 
gards her  government,  discipline,  organization,  creed,  cov- 
enant, terms  of  admission  and  laws  of  fellowship  as  essen- 
tiall}'  righteous.  The  very  things  which  distinguish  her  as 
a  denomi  nation,  and  constitute  her  peculiarities,  she  cherishes 
with  becoming  pride  and  gratitude  to  God,  and  claims  her 
historic  heirloom  as  evidence  that,  as  a  distinctive  denom- 
ination, she  is,  in  her  peculiar  doctrine  and  order,  nearer 
the  Word  of  God  than  any  other  denomination  on  earth. 
The  proof  of  this  is  abundant  .as  the  pages  of  her  standards, 
and  multiplied  as  the  leaves  of  her  history.  In  her  "  system 
of  union,"  portrayed  in  the  principles  preliminary  to  her 
form  of  government,  and  elsewhere,  she  recognizes  the  right 
of  all  evangelical  denominations  to  exist,  equally  as  her 
own,  and  upon  the  very  same  grounds,  grounds  of  conscience, 
charity,  forbearance,  peace  and  unity,  grounds  of  expedi- 


[63] 

ency  and  propriety.  She  calls  them  "  orthodox  churches  of 
Christ,"  "societies,"  "particular  societies,"  "associations 
of  particular  churches,"  "denominations,"  "protestant  de- 
nominations," and  affirms  their  right  to  exist,  and  to  declare 
their  own  terms  of  communion.  Digest,  pp.  44,  51,  147. 
She  acknowledges  room  for  honest  differences  of  opinion 
as  to  "truths  and  forms."  Pp.  44,  50.  She  insists  upon  de- 
nominational confessions  and  creeds,  as  "  absolutely  requisite 
to  the  settled  peace  of  the  Church,  and  to  the  happy  and 
orderly  existence  of  Christian  Communion,"  P.  54.  She 
excludes  from  her  own  denomination  "  all  Ministers  and 
Churches  who  can  not  relinquish  their  peculiarities  with  a 
good  conscience,"  and  will  not  tolerate  their  antagonisms  in 
her  own  bosom.  P.  57.  Slie  says  :  "  We  are  Presbyterians, 
and  we  firmly  believe  the  Presbyterian  system  of  doctrine, 
discipline,  and  church  government  to  be  nearer  to  the  Word 
of  God  than  that  of  any  other  sect  or  denomination." 
Baird's  Digest,  p,  38,  She  has  made  her  confession  and  discip- 
line a  basis,  and  the  only  basis,  of  her  re-united  existence. 
Moore's  Digest,  p.  91  [2].  She  declares  her  distinctive  or- 
ganization is  "  agreeable  to  Scripture  and  the  practice  of 
primitive  Christians,"  and  in  full  consistency  with  this  be- 
lief she  yet  "  embraces  in  the  spirit  of  charity  all  who  differ 
from  her  in  opinion  and  practice  on  these  subjects."  P. 
120  [1],  This  toleration  of  the  rights  and  institutions  of 
others,  so  far  from  prompting  her  to  self-dissolution  for  the 
sake  of  organic  union,  leads  her  to  engrave  in  her  standards 
the  perpetual  provision  that  her  courts  shall  "take  effect- 
ual care"  that  her  peculiar  constitution  shall  be  preserved 
and  enforced.  P.  141  [IV].  Nor  will  she  allow  any  min- 
ister belonging  to  another  denomination  to  retain  official 
membership  in  her  own.  P.  620.  I  need  not  quote  further. 
The  Presbyterian  Church  may  be  either  deplorably  blind, 
or  bigoted,  or  criminal  in  Mr.  McCune's  eyes,  for  her  esti- 
mate of  her  own  importance,  and  the  exercise  of  Christian 
charity  towards  all  other  evangelical  denominations  ;  but  sin 
and  holiness  are  not  more  opposed  than  are  the  contradic- 
tory positions  of  Mr.  McCnne  and  his  Church.  It  is  not 
possible  that  any  loyal  Presbyterian  could  indulge  the  Ian- 


[64] 

_s:nage  of  Mr.  McCune,  or  sincerely  adopt  and  approve  the 
Westminster  standards.  ISTor  is  it  possible  that  any  Pres- 
byterian minister,  having  the  honor,  peace,  unity  and  purity 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  at  heart,  more  than  his  own 
theories  or  purposes,  could  be  so  far  forgetful  of  his  solemn 
ordination  vows,  as  to  countenance,  encourage,  palliate,  de- 
fend, or  even  tolerate,  the  continued  propagation  of  a  stand- 
ing libel  upon  his  own  Church,  proclaiming  to  the  world 
the  "  essential  sinfulness  "  of  its  denominational  character, 
and  denying  to  it,  as  well  as  to  all  other  evangelical  denom- 
inations, even  the  right  of  existence. 

Mr.  McCune's  anti-denominational  law  rests  upon  a  doc- 
trine in  irreconcileable  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  and  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  ''  Body  of 
Christ."  He  not  only  misinterprets  God's  Word  as  to  things 
indifferent;  he  likewise  misinterprets  it  as  to  things  essential. 
He  blunders  into  the  papal  artifice  of  identifying  the  "Body 
of  Christ"  with  the  "  visible  Church,"  or  the  whole  company 
of  professing  Christians.  The  Ch  urch  on  earth,  he  tells  us,  is 
an  external  and  unitous  organization  of  regenerate  souls.  The 
"  Communion  of  Saints  "  is,  therefore,  an  ecclesiastical  com- 
munion. Membership  in  the  visible  Church  is  membership 
in  the  "  Body  of  Christ."  The  separation  of  the  visible 
Church  into  denominations  is  the  rending  of  the  "  Body 
of  Christ,"  and  a  sinful  breach  of  the  "  Communion  of 
Saints."  Hence  his  anti-denominationalism.  Hence  his 
declaration  that  denominations,  as  such,  are  "  essentially 
sinful  "  and  have  no  right  to  exist.  Hence  his  new  "  divine 
law  of  organization  "  and  "  non-exclusion  "  of  any  Chris- 
tian minister  or  member  from  any  particular  denomination. 
Hence  his  practical  denial  of  what  our  standards  expressly 
af&rm,  viz:  that  each  society  has  the  right  to  declare  its 
own  terms  of  ministerial  fellowship.  Hence  the  glaring 
fallacy  in  the  opening  sentence  of  the  Linwood  "  Declara- 
tion," and  all  through  the  "Address"  to  the  Churches  of 
l^orth  America,  confounding  the  "  One  Body "  with  the 
Visible  Church,  denouncing  denominations  as  a  disruption 
of  the  Body  and  a  dividing  of  Christ.  Hence  the  unen- 
durable sentiment  that  so  long  as  denominations  exist  our 


[65] 

Savior's  intercessory  prayer  is  not  fully  realised,  as  though 
the  doctrine  of  union  to  Christ  and  the  Communion  of 
Saints  depended  for  its  perfection  upon  external  oneness  of 
Church  organization.  Hence  the  external  oneness  he  so 
zealously  advocates.  It  is  Home's  theory  and  Rome's  unity. 
But  the  Church  visible  is  not  the  "Body  of  Christ;"  nor 
is  external  church  communion  the  "  Communion  of  Saints;" 
nor  is  external  oneness  the  unity  of  the  "  One  Body  "  de- 
scribed by  Paul;  nor  is  Church  Union  Christian  Unity. 
Our  Standards  discriminate,  clearly,  the  Communion  of 
Saints  from  Church  Communion.  The  latter  is  the  exter- 
nal fellowship  of  the  visible  Church  in  ordinances  and 
ecclesiastical  membership,  restricted  by  the  right  of  every 
particular  Church  to  declare  its  own  terms  of  communion  ; 
the  former  is  the  inward,  spiritual,  and  unlimited  fellowship 
of  the  whole  "Body  of  Christ"  in  earth  and  in  Heaven 
in  the  life,  sufierings,  death,  resurrection,  grace,  and  glory, 
of  its  adorable  Head.  It  is  spiritual,  "ol  in  them,  and 
Thou  in  me  ! "  "  That  they  may  be  one  as  we  are."  It  rests 
upon  the  indissoluble  spiritual  conjunction  of  the  living 
members  with  the  living  Head,  each  member  in  inseparable 
communion  with  every  other,  no  matter  how  outwardly 
separated  by  time,  place,  or  name,  all  common  members  of 
the  one  spiritual  "  Body  of  Christ."  Form  of  Gov.,  chap.  I 
(II).  Conf.  of  Faith,  chap.  XXVI.  Larger  Cat.  Q.  60,  82, 
83,  86.  The  external  symbol  or  pledge  of  this  "  Com- 
munion of  Saints"  is  not  any  common  external  church- 
membership,  but  the  sacramental  scene  and  solemnity  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Conf.  of  Faith,  chap.  XXIX  (I).  No- 
where in  our  Standards  is  the  "  One  Body,"  or  the  "  Body 
of  Christ"  applied  to  the  visible  Church.  Nowhere  is  ex- 
ternal oneness  of  organization  classed  among  the  privileges 
or  marks  of  either  the  visible  or  invisible  Church.  No- 
where is  the  Communion  of  Saints  confounded  with  exter- 
nal organic  union.  Nowhere  is  outward  oneness  of 
organization,  this  side  of  eternal  glory,  implied  as  a  neces- 
sary demand  or  involved  result  of  this  "  Communion  of 
Saints."  Everywliere  the  doctrine  runs  through  all  de- 
scriptions and  definitions  that  the  Communion   of  Saints, 


[66] 

founded  on  the  spiritual  oneness  for  which  oar  Saviour 
prayed — a  prayer  ever  fullilled  from  the  hour  it  was  poured 
at  Gethsemane's  gate — is  as  consistent  with  the  existence 
of  five  hundred  denominations  as  with  one.  Nowhere  is  it 
possible  to  draw  the  conclusion  that  evangelical  denomina- 
tions, as  such,  are  a  breach  of  Christian  unity,  whatever 
they  may  be  of  an  outward,  all-absorbing  external  Ro- 
manistic  Babel  of  Indifierentism  and  Church  Union.  Who 
does  not  know  that  "  Rome's  Organic  Union,"  so  called,  is 
a  carnal  caricature  and  Satanic  aping  of  the  Spiritual  union 
between  Christ  the  "Head"  and  the  mystical  "Body?" 
Upon  such  a  theory  of  union,  anti-denominationalism  rests. 
It  is  Rome's  argument,  and  in  Proof  6,  Mr.  McCune  admits 
it.  The  external  and  spiritual  are  confounded.  The  logic 
is  that  the  outward  church  must  be  visibly  one  because  the 
invisible  church  is  spiritually  one.  The  theory  leads 
inevitably  to  an  external  visible  Head,  the  Pope.  The 
Reformers  denied  the  theory,  and  lifted  to  notice  the  clear 
distinction  in  God's  Word  between  the  visible  church  and 
the  "  Body  of  Clirist."  The  doctrine  of  Mr.  McCune  is  a 
denial  of  this  fundamental  truth,  and  a  consequent  denial 
of  the  Scripture  right  of  the  Reformed  denominations  to 
exist.  He  charges  that  they  violate  the  external  oneness 
and  Communion  of  Saints.  Protestantism  never  fathered 
such  a  mediaeval  monstrosity  or  jumble  of  confusion  as 
this,  and  then  sought  to  justify  its  separation  from  Rome. 
Reformed  Symbolism  could  not  embody  it,  and  justify  the 
separation  from  Lutheranism.  Much  less  could  the  West- 
minster Standards  assert  the  doctrine  and  justify  the  dis- 
tinctive, peculiar,  and  Divine  right  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  to  exist.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  that  evangelical  denominations,  as  such,  are  esssen- 
tiall}'  sinful.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures.  It 
is  anti-Protestant  and  pro-Roman.  Mr.  McCune  has  yet  to 
learn  that  tiie  guilt  of  Schism  and  Sectarianism  rested  not 
upon  the  Reformers,  but  upon  Rome;  on  the  English  Es- 
tablishment, and  not  upon  the  two  thousand  ejected  non- 
conformist ministers;  on  the  Scotch  Establishment,  and 
not  on  the  Eree  Church  movement.     He  has  yet  to  learn 


[67] 

what  all  History  teaches,  that  God  raises  up  denorainatious 
for  liis  own  glory  and  the  good  of  His  Church,  and,  that, 
in  every  case  of  importance,  the  outward  Bahel  of  Or- 
ganic Union  has  been  broken  up  for  the  sake  of  the  Peace 
and  Truth  of  God,  of  more  value  than  any  externalism 
down  from  the  Signal  Mound  on  Shinar's  plain  struck  by 
lightning,  to  the  last  theological  Institute  for  "  Candidates" 
and  "  Ministers"  at  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout. 

"  The  Church,"  says  Dr.  Bannerman  in  his  admirable 
work,  "is  described  as  the  'Body  of  Christ,'  all  the  mem- 
bers of  which  are  united  to  Him  as  the  Head  of  life,  in- 
fluence, and  grace  to  them  ;  a  description  not  applicable  to 
any  body  of  professing  Christians,  made  up  of  any  or  all  com- 
munions, but  only  to  be  realized  in  that  great  multitude 
which  no  man  has  seen  or  numbered,  who  make  up  the 
invisible  Church  of  the  Redeemer,  and  whose  names  are 
written  in  Heaven."  "  To  apply  interchangeably,  and  as  if 
properly  convertible,  what  is  spoken  in  Scripture  of  ti:ie  in- 
visible Church,  to  the  visible,  and  vice  versa,  is  a  frequent 
and  favorite  resource  of  Romanist  Controversialists." 
Church  of  Christ,  Vol.  I,  pp.  8,  39.  It  is  precisely  what 
Mr.  McCune  has  done.  It  is  the  basis  of  his  anti-denom- 
inationalism.  It  rests  on  an  utterly  false  view  of  the  nature 
of  the  Church.  "  Romanists  teach,"  says  Dr.  Hodge,  "that 
the  Church  is  essentially  an  external  organized  community, 
as  the  commonwealth  of  Israel."  "  Protestants  teach,  iu 
exact  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  His 
apostles,  (1)  that  the  Church,  as  such,  is  not  an  external 
organization,  and  (2)  that  all  true  believers,  in  whom  the 
Spirit  of  God  dwells,  are  members  of  tliat  Church  which  is 
the  'Body  of  Christ.' "     Syst.  Theol.  Vol.  I,  pp.  131,  135. 

This  is  the  view  of  our  Standards.  They  deny  that  the 
"Body  of  Christ,"  the  "One  Body"  means  the  visible 
Church,  and  so  deny  Mr.  McCune's  second  fundamental 
interpretation  of  Scripture.  They  deny  that  the  oneness 
of  the  "Body  of  Christ"  is  external  oneness,  and  so  con- 
tradict Mr.  McCune's  doctrine  that  denominations  are  a 
crime  against  the  "  One  Body,"  the  "  Body  of  Christ,"  and 
a  crime  against  the  "  Communion  of  Saints."     Denying 


[68] 

tins,  they  deny  that  denominations  are  "  essentially  sinful," 
and  affirming  the  Divine  right  or  Scriptural  authority  for  the 
existence  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  as  such.  They 
take  the  same  ground,  in  reference  to  Mr.  McCune's  third 
fuudmental  misinterpretation,  viz.,  that  of  our  Savior's  inter- 
cessary  prayer  as  necessitating  external  oneness,  and  also 
in  reference  to  his  fourth  misinterpretation  of  the  Scripture 
referring  to  the  "schisms  and  divisions'"  in  the  Corinthian 
Church  which  he  interprets  as  external  separations  to  be 
avoided,  whereas  they  were  internal  disorders  in  the  spiritual 
"Body  of  Christ,"  personal  alienations  of  believers,  divi- 
sions of  mind,  party  pireferences  and  strifes,  "  Schism  m 
the  Body."  The  Sectarianism  Paul  deplored  was  not  a 
charitable  denominationalism.  It  was  a  party  spirit  in  the 
"  One  Body,"  a  sinful  breach  of  spiritual  fellowship,  not  of 
Church  membership.  It  was  not  two  peaceful  denomina- 
tions, working  nobly  for  the  master,  and  bearing  with  each 
other's  conscientious  differences,  he  rebuked,  but  one 
organic  denomination,  depreciating  the  truth  of  Christ, 
wasting  its  energies  in  strife  and  alienations  about  Paul, 
Apollos,  Cephas,  and  Christ,  and  marring  its  own  spiritual 
life,  unit}^,  and  communion  by  sinful  contention.  Well  has 
Dr.  Errett,  the  gifted,  editor  of  the  Standard,  said,  in  his 
controversy  with  Mr.  McCune :  "It  is  easy  to  say  hard 
things  about  Sectarianism,  and  to  profess  great  abhorrence 
of  it.  But  the  farther  men  get  from  Christ,  the  more 
liberal  can  they  afford  to  be  in  giving  away  His  IVuth,  and 
in  the  popular  sense  of  the  word  Charity,  the  men  of  the 
largest  charity  are  the  men  who  hold  at  the  very  cheapest 
rate  the  truth  that  Jesus  taught."  Standard,  December  18, 
1875. 

Mr.  McCune  exclaims,  both  hands  uplifted,  against  the 
"sin"  of  "enforcing"  upon  the  official  ministry  a  distinc- 
tive denominational  creed.  He  smites  it  as  a  crime  against 
the  Communion  of  Saints.  Presbyterian  Sectarianism,  as 
he  calls  it,  he  hates.  I  have  already  quoted  the  constitu- 
tional provisions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  requiring  the 
enforcement  of  her  Standards  upon  all  her  office-bearers, 
ministers,  elders,  and  deacons.     I   need  not   quote  them 


[69] 

again.  Enactment  of  denominational  laws,  and  enforce- 
ment of  denominational  creeds,  he  accounts  an  oppression 
of  the  conscience.  Whose  conscience  does  it  oppress? 
]!!^ot  his  who  sincerely  approves  it.  It  is  a  protest  against 
his  own  ordination  vows,  a  declaration  that  he  is  not  in 
fact,  what  he  professed  himself  to  be,  and  that  he  does  not 
sincerely  adopt  and  approve  our  Standards.  He  denies  the 
right  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  present  to  him  the 
alternatives  of  either  teaching  the  distinctive  doctrines  of 
her  systeoi,  or  leaving  her  communion.  The  issue  is  plain 
and  unmistakable.  It  is  the  proclamation  of  independency 
while  yet  remaining  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  He  has 
given  us  abundant  illustration  of  it.  For  "ten  years"  he 
has  denied  her  right  to  exist,  or  enforce  her  creed.  He 
protested  against  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  of  In- 
vestigation. He  protested  aojainst  the  exercise  of  episcopal 
power.  He  protested  against  the  institution  of  judicial 
process.  He  declared,  at  first,  he  would  not  receive  the 
judicial  charges  from  the  prosecution.  He  is  opposed  to 
the  enforcement  of  our  denominational  law.  He  denounces 
it  as  a  "sin.""  He  tells  us  he  proposes  to  teach  in  future 
the  doctrines  he  has  taught  in  the  past.  And  to  fortify  his 
claim  to  exercise  himself  in  this  imperial  way,  he,  formally, 
announces  to  all  whom  it  may  concern  that  "  the  Presby- 
terian Church  has  ceased  to  enforce  Infant  Baptism.^'  He 
longs  and  labors  for  the  day  when  she  will  cease  to  enforce 
all  her  distinctive  tenets.  He  would  like  to  see  them 
either  dropped  off  or  hung  up  as  a  dried  curiosity  iu  some 
library,  or  metamorphosed  by  revision  into  the  likeness  of 
the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Manual,  with  a  "  Basis  of 
■Fellowship"  for  a  Creed,  and  some  "  Kegulations  of  Ex- 
pediency "  for  a  Polity. 

Moderator,  the  doctrine  of  non-enforcement  is  not  the 
doctrine  of  our  Standards,  whatever  our  lax  practice  may 
be.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  covenant-breaking,  anarchy,  and 
revolution,  the  doctrine  of  the  tyranny  of  liberalism,  and 
the  despotism  of  arbitrary  power,  trampling  every  constitu- 
tional right  of  the  individual  under  foot,  and  every  guaran- 
tee for  the  defense  of  the  truth  and  order  of  the  House  of 


[70] 

God,  and  for  the  protection  of  personal  character  of 
ministers  and  members.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  disobedience 
to  vows.  It  is  treason  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  is 
nullification.  It  abolishes  the  Constitution  to  meet  a  con- 
tingency, build  up  an  interest,  or  further  a  scheme.  It 
keeps  no  faith  with  brethren.  Promises  are  pretences. 
Compacts  are  nullities.  Majorities  are  riders.  Engagements, 
sealed  by  prayer,  are  mockeries.  It  invokes  the  repudiation 
of  discipline — ofiers  a  premium  on  policy  adverse  to  truth, 
and  bids  for  a  human  expediency  adverse  to  Divine  right- 
eousness. It  means  liberty  to  do  and  to  teach  as  one 
pleases,  under  the  euphonious  nomenclature  of  "forbear- 
ance in  love" — license  to  circulate  assaults  upon  Presby- 
terian doctrine  and  polity — toleration  to  print  manuals  of 
organic  union,  and  to  organize  at  Linwood  and  Mt.  Look- 
out. 'Need  I  ask,  is  it  possible  for  a  Presbyterian  minister 
sincerely  to  approve  the  government  and  discipline  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  be  zealous  and  faithful  in  study- 
ing her  peace,  unity,  and  purity,  and  yet  advocate  the  non- 
enforcement  of  her  distinctive  doctrine  and  order?  Is  this 
loyalty  ? 

Once  more,  Mr.  McCune  asserts,  not  only  that  the  Pres- 
byterian denomination  has  no  right  to  exist,  but  denies  her 
right,  as  such,  to  be  called  a  *'  Church."  His  plea  that  this 
is  the  Congregational  view  amounts  to  nothing.  This  may 
appear  to  some  a  little  thing,  but  it  is  great.  It  means 
more  than  the  childish  truism  that  one  particular  Church  is 
not  njany  particular  Churches,  or  that  many  particular 
Churches  are  not  a  single  particular  Church.  Pompey, 
couching  at  the  door,  knows  that  one  is  not  forty,  and  forty 
not  one.  It  means  that  the  term  "  Church  "  can  not  be  ap- 
plied to  a  plurality  of  congregations,  organically  held  under 
one  rule.  It  is  a  lever  to  "upheave  our  whole  polity.  Be- 
lieve that  statement,  and  Presbyterianism  melts  out  of 
eight.  The  Presbyterian  standards  maintain  that  the  term 
"  Church"  has  a  five-fold  Scriptural  application.  It  means 
(1)  the  "Body  of  Christ,"  i.  e.  the  whole  body  of  believers 
on  earth  and  in  heaven,  the  plural  unit  of  all  who  are 
joined  to  Christ  by  individual  faith,  the  Invisible  Church ; 


[71] 

(2)  the  whole  body,  or  plural  unit  of  professing  Christians 
on  earth,  together  with  their^children,  i.  e.  the  outward  Visi- 
ble Church  ;  (3)  the  whole  body,  or  plural  unit  of  professed 
believers  in  any  particular  spot,  i.  e.  the  particular  congre- 
gation ;  (4)  the  whole  body,  or  plural  unit  of  associated 
congregations  organically  connected  together  under  one  ec- 
clesiastical order  or  rule,  i.  e.  the  particular  denomination ; 
(5)  the  whole  bench,  or  plural  unit  of  representatives,  or 
office-bearers,  as  distinguished  from  the  congregation  or 
the  people,  i.  e.  a  particular  court.  Mr.  McCune  denies  two 
of  these  definitions  in  whole,  the  4th  and  5th,  and  two  in 
part,  the  2d  and  3d.  He  holds  that  the  term  "  Church  "  is 
applicable,  "  in  the  singular  number,"  (1)  to  the  Body  of 
Christ,  and  (2)  to  a  particular  congregation,  minus  tiie  in- 
fants of  believers.  He  denies  that  it  is  applicable  to  a 
plurality  of  congregations  organically  connected  under  one 
■ecclesiastical  rule,  with  superior  representative  Courts  of 
review  and  control,  i.  e.  he  denies  Presbytery  and  asserts 
Independency.  A  Presbytery  for  him  is  "an  unauthorized 
and  unscripturul  "  body,  a  S^niod,  the  same,  a  General  As- 
sembly, the  same.  The  necessary  result  is  that  the  Presby- 
terian denomination,  as  such,  is  no  "  Church  "  at  all.  It 
follows  from  his  argument  on  the  definition  of  a  Church. 
This  denial  strikes  at  the  root  of  our  whole  polity.  Every 
Presbyterian  knows,  perfectly  well,  that,  the  peculiar  and 
■distinctive  mark  of  Presbyterianism,  as  a  polity,  is  not  the 
eldership,  for  the  early  congregationalists  all  had  their  bench, 
of  elders,  and  John  Owen's  celebrated  treatise  on  tlie"  True 
Nature  of  a  Gospel  Church,"  abundantly  establishes  this 
fact;  but  it  is  (1)  the  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  congrega- 
tions organically  held  together  in  subordination  to  one  com- 
mon ecclesiastical  rule,  and  (2)  an  ascending  series  of  courts 
built  upon  that  rule.  These  in  their  totality  constitute  a 
Church.  This  is  Presbyterianism  as  opposed  to  the  indi- 
vidualistic idea  of  Independency.  Mr.  McCune  retires 
from  the  Hall  of  Westminster,  with  the  Independents,  una- 
ble to  stand  beside  the  Presbyterians,  and  maintain  the  pro- 
position "the  Scripture  doth  hold  forth  that  man}'  particu- 
lar congregations  may  be  under  one  Presbyterial  govern- 


[  72  ] 

ment."  Gillespie's  "Armor  "  he  throws  aside.  His  theory 
repudiates  an  asceucling  series  of  courts.  Distinctive  Pres- 
byterian polity  can  not  survive  his  denial  of  the  application 
of  the  term  Church  "in  the  singular  number  "  to  a  plurality 
of  associated  congregations  organically  held  under  one  ec- 
clesiastical rule.  The  Presbyterian  denomination  is,  there- 
fore, "  not  a  Church."  "  Admit,"  says  Dr.  Bannerman, 
"the  narrow  position  taken  by  the  Independents  in  regard 
to  the  true  meaning  and  nature  of  the  Church,  as  defined 
in  Scripture,  restrict  the  term  to  one  or  other  of  the  two 
significations  of  either  the  invisible  Church  at  large,  or  a 
single  congregation  of  believers  in  a  particular  locality, 
and  you,  in  fact,  concede  every  principle  that  is  necessary 
for  them  to  establish  their  views  as  to  the  form  of  the 
Church  and  the  nature  of  its  government."  It  is  precisely 
just  what  Mr.  McCune  has  done.  It  is  not  possible  for  a 
man  sincerely  to  adopt  and  approve  our  Presbyterian  polity 
and  advocate  the  views  of  Mr.  McCune.  I  aflirm  again, 
upon  his  own  testimony,  that  Mr.  McCune  is  an  Indepen- 
dent in  polity,  and  not  a  Presbyterian.  It  is  not  possible 
for  a  man  with  such  convictions  to  be  at  rest,  or  study  the 
peace,  unity,  and  purity  of  the  Church.  The  first  advening 
opportunity  he  will  either  seek  or  create  an  independent 
pastorate  where  his  particular  local  Church  "  in  the  singular 
number  "  will  exist  "  outside  Presbyterian  jurisdiction,"  as 
at  Lin  wood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  while  he  himself  still  hangs 
on  to  his"  unauthorized,"  "  extra-Scriptural"  Presbyterian 
organization,  for  the  sake  of  "  good  standing"  and  public 
"indorsement"  by  a  body  whose  character  he  denounces  as 
"  sectarian,";,whose  distinctive  creed  he  traduces  as  an  "  ex- 
crescence,'^ whose  "right  to  exist"  he  denies,  and  whose 
name  as  a  "Church"  he  rejects,  and  with  a  boldness  un- 
paralleled he  informs  us  that  his  purpose  is  to  remain  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  spread  abroad  his  doctrines  and  "  im- 
bue the  whole  denomination  with  them,"  and  agitate  and 
seek  "  revision"  of  the  standards  in  the  interest  of  his 
scheme.  Is  this  loyalty  ?  Is  it  honor  ?  I  aflirm  that  it  is 
disloyalty  and  treason  of  the  most  glaring  character,  delib- 
erate, intentional,  and  persistent  to  the  Church,  as  well  aa 


[73] 

persistent  misrepresentation  of  Scripture,  and  that,  as  a  se- 
cular editor  has  well  said,  "  a  charge  of  nitro-glycerine  un- 
der a  nine  inch  wall,  would  not  be  more  destructive  to  the 
wall  than  McCuneism  is,  if  allowed,  to  tlie  Presbyterian 
denomination."  In  answer  to  Mr.  McCune's  allegation  that 
the  Presbyterian  denomination  is  not  a  Clmrch,  I  present 
her  legal  title,  under  which  she  is  incorporated  and  which 
flames  on  the  frontlet  of  her  standards  he  professes  to  ap- 
prove, "  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America.^'     I  pass  to  the  third  specification. 

SPECIFICATION    III. 

Creeds. 
If  Mr.  McCune's  views  have  amazed  us,  already,  on  ac- 
count of  their  gross  perversions  of  Scripture,'and  point-blank 
contradiction  of  our  standards,  they  will,  under  this  speci- 
fication, make  us  almost  doubt  our  own  eyes,  and  compel 
us  to  read  again  the  proofs,  finger  on  every  line.  What  is 
it  we  see  ?  The  sight  of  a  Presbyterian  minister,  who  hav- 
ing professed  sincere  adoption  of  the  Westminster  stand- 
ards, yet  lifts  up  the  voice  of  remonstrance  and  declares  to  the 
church  that  he  is  utterly  opposed  to  all  human  creeds ;  that 
the  only  creed  he  will  accept  is  a  "  genuine  ISTew  Testament 
creed,"  i.  e.  a  syllabus  of  unexplained  texts,  a  "  few  leading 
truths,"  or  what  he  calls  "  the  common  faith  "  "  expressed  in 
God's'own  language"  as  "commonly  received,"  "  without  any 
human  inferences,"  "  deductions,"  or  "  modifications  ;"  that 
he  would  "  strike  out  "  of  every  creed,  had  he  the  power, 
everything  all  Christians  could  "  not  see  to  be  law  in  Scrip- 
ture ;"  that  "  the  Bible"  (he  does  not  say  whether  in  He- 
brew or  Greek  or  English)  is  the  "  only  true,  proper,  and 
sufficient  creed  for  all  ministers;"  that  human  creeds  are 
sectarian  creeds  and  "  always  mischievous  and  sinful;"  that 
every  argument  to  prove  the  need  of  an  enlarged  creed  is 
a  "  falsity  ;"  that  no  creed  tests  are  to  be  allowed  in  the 
examination  or  ordination  of  ministers  (an  illustration  of 
which  was  had  in  the  "Council"  that  examined  and  in- 
stalled Mr.  McCune  over  the  new  institute  that  requires 
"  no  assent  to  any  denominational  peculiarity  !") ;  that  "  no 
surrender"  of  any  peculiarity,  and  free  speech,  with  no 


[74] 

"enforcement"  of  any  peculiarity  and  free  speech  is  the 
Gospel  style  of  things,  and  that  before  the  Church  has  any 
right  to  make  a  creed  at  all,  she  must  be  either  unanimously 
orthodox,  or  unanimously  heretical,  in  order  that  no  man's 
conscience  may  be  oppressed  !  The  reason  for  all  this,  he 
tells  us,  [is,  first,  that  "  Saving  Faith,"  and  second,  "a  few 
leading  fundamental  doctrines"  (he  does  not  say  how 
many)  efiectuallj'  "  exclude  all  fatal  heresy"  (not  saying 
whether  he  means  fatal  to  salvation,  or  fatal  to  the  truth 
of  God,  which  is  the  means  of  salvation);  and  that  herein 
the  blessed  apostles  were  an  example  to  us,  and  to  all  secta- 
rian Protestantism,  versus  our  own  "  unblushing  assumption 
of  divine  prerogative,"  which  difi'ers  nothing,  he  assures  us^ 
from  the  "rotten  basis  on  which  Rome  stands."  "If,"  in 
the  language  of  Mr,  McCune,  "  the  whole  Church  of  the 
living  God,  including  all,  of  every  name,  who  give  satis- 
factory scriptural  evidence  that  they  are  born  of  the  Spirit," 
had  only  entertained,  from  the  beginning,  similar  senti- 
ments to  these,  what  a  literature  had  been  spared,  how  ab- 
breviated the  theological  curriculum  had  been,  what  a 
saving  of  funds  unnecessarily  wasted  on  seminaries,  and  of 
toil  in  laboriously  writing  the  career  of  the  Church,  and 
how  multiplied  prototypes  of  the  Council  at  Mount  Look- 
out would  have  dazzled  in  history,  instead  of  the  dnll  Spec- 
tacles of  l^ice,  Chalcedon,  Dort,  and  Westminster  ! 

Our  Standards  set  their  face  against  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
McCune  and  repudiate  it  as  dangerous  and  false.  They  do 
it  in  the  declaration  that  every  Christian  Church  has  the 
right  to  declare  its.  own  terms  of  communion.  They  do  it 
not  only  in  affirming  the  right  of  private  judgment,  but  the 
Church's  right,  as  the  Steward  of  the  mysteries  of  God,  to 
declare  to  the  world  in  her  own-  language,  as  a  witness  on 
the  stand,  speaking  in  his  own  words,  what  she  believes 
the  Word  of  God  means,  and  what  she  understands  thereby. 
"  Understandest  thou  what  thou  readest?  How  can  I  ex- 
cept some  man  should  guide  me  ?"  Acts  8  :  30.  "  The 
meaning  of  the  Bible,"  says  Cecil,  "zs  the  Bible."  "The 
sense  of  Scripture,"  says  Waterland,  "  is  Scripture.'^  The 
Presbyterian  Church  affirms  that  "  Confessions  of  Faith, 


[75] 

containing  formulas  of  doctrine  and  rules  for  conducting 
the  discipline  and  worship  proper  to  be  maintained  in  the 
house  of  God,  are  not  only  recognized  as  necessary  and  ex- 
pedient, but,  as  the  character  of  human  nature  is  continually 
aiming  at  innovation^  absolutely  requisite  to  the  settled  peace 
of  the  Church,  and  to  the  happy  and  orderl}'-  existence  of 
Christian  Communion."  Digest,  p.  54.  She  believes  her 
creed  "can  not  be  abandoned  without  abandonment  of  the 
"Word  of  God,"  p.  54.  She  enforces  it,  by  solemn  vows, 
upon  all  her  ministers,  elders,  and  deacons,  pp.  399,  410. 
They  who  "  traduce"  it  are  amenable  to  discipline,  j)p.  54, 
55.  "  Ministers  who  can  not  adopt  the  standards  are  not 
to  be  received,"  p.  57.  Those  who  change  their  views  are 
to  "  peaceably  withdraw,"  p.  48.  Others,  who  come  to  her 
from  other  bodies,  are  "  to  teach  in  the  manner  required  by 
our  standards,"  p.  148.  She  repudiates  any  and  every  doc- 
trine that  would  "  impair  the  integrity  of  the  Calvinistic 
system,"  p.  85.  She  appends  the  apostles'  creed  at  the  end 
of  her  own,  and  recommends  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  as 
one  of  a  number  of  reformed  symbols,  as  maintaining  "  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  p.  56.  She  expressly 
forbids  the  teaching  of  any  doctrine  "  inconsistent  with  the 
sacred  Scriptures  as  explained  and  summarily  taught  in  the 
doctrinal  standards  of  our  Church"  p.  304.  As  to '"  human 
deductions  and  inferences,"  which  Mr.  McCune  will  not 
tolerate,  she  says  "  that  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  concern- 
ing all  things  necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man's  salvation, 
faith,  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,  or 
by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  he- deduced  from  Scrip- 
ture." Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  1,  sec.  2.  She  charges  the  Synod 
"to  take  eiiectual  care  that  Presbyteries  observe  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church,"  p.  191,  and  warns,  in  the  most 
earnest  language,  against  any  one  who,  "  under  the  specious 
pretense  of  honoring  the  sacred  Scriptures,  would  persuade 
you  to  reject  all  written  or  printed  creeds,  and  forms  of  dis- 
cipline, alleging  that  those  who  adopted  such,  substitute 
them  for  divine  inspiration."  Baird's  Digest,  p.  638.  Such 
is  the  law  of  the  church  to  which  Mr.  McCune  belongs  ;  its 
denominational  law ;  its  enactment.     He  denounces  it  as  an 


[76] 

"excrescence,"  a  "sin,"  a  "sectarian  oppression,"  and 
wishes  it  were  out  of  the  way.  Do  you  believe  he  "  sin- 
cerely adopts  "  our  Confession,  or  "  sincerely  approves  "  our 
government  and  discipline  ?  He  does  no  such  thing.  He 
disparages  and  traduces  both,  and  inquires,  with  a  triumph- 
ant air,  "  Did  the  Apostolic  Church  demand  assent  to  the  Pres- 
byterian Confession  of  Faith  f 

Mr.  McCune's  theory  is  as  ridiculous  as  it  is  dangerous 
and  sophistical.  He  thinks  that,  because  "  the  Word  of 
God  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  " — one 
human  deduction,  at  least,  that  he  accepts — therefore  a 
creed  declaring  and  defining  what  is  the  sense  of  that  rule 
is  unnecessary.  A  man,  not  believing  the  Bible  infallible, 
comes  to  Mr.  McCune  and  applies  for  admission  to  his 
church.  Mr.  McCnue  repeats  the  "  human  deduction  " 
that  "  the  Word  of  God  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice."  No  "  human  deductions,"  exclaims  his 
friend;  "confine  yourself  to  the  language  of  God  as  com- 
monly received."  Mr,  McCune  appeals  to  the  naked  text. 
Who  shall  decide  now  whether  the  Bible  is  infallible  or 
not?  Or  is  a  decision  needed  on  so  non-essential  a  matter? 
If  a  decision  is  made,  the  statement  is  a  "  human  deduc- 
tion " — a  veritable  creed.  But  no  human  creeds  are  allow- 
ed, and  Mr.  McCune's  friend,  while  accepting  the  texts, 
understands  them  in  a  diflterent  way.  Will  you  receive  me 
in  Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout,  to  the  glory  of  God,  as 
Christ  has  received  me?  cries  his  friend.  Not  if  you  don't 
believe  the  Bible  infallible,  responds  Mr.  McCune.  But, 
replies  the  other,  Christ  has  received  me;  I  believe  in  Christ, 
and  my  walk  and  conversation  are  as  good  as  your  own. 
Besides  you  have  taught  that  a  man  may  be  a  true  Chris- 
tian and  "  not  believe  the  Bible  infallible."  I  had  forgotten 
that,  responds  Mr.  McCune;  but  come  in,  you  give  satis- 
factory scriptural  evidence  that  Christ  has  received  you, 
and  though  we  differ  in  minor  matters,  we  will  extend  to 
you  "  forbearance  in  love,"  and  not  enforce  our  "  mere 
peculiarities,  contrary  to  conscience,  as  a  matter  of  sectarian 
law."  Come  in.  Another  steps  up  "for  admission,  confess- 
ing, however,  he  does  not  believe  in  the  true  and  proper 


[77] 

humanity  of  Christ.  Will  yon  receive  me,  to  the  glory  of 
God.?  enquires  his  second  friend.  "  The  Son  of  God,"  says 
Mr.  McCune,  "became  man  by  taking  to  himself  a  true 
body  and  a  reasonable  soul."  No  "human  deductions," 
replies  his  friend;  "confine  yourself  to  the  language  of 
God,  as  commonly  received."  But  that's  what  it  means, 
says  Mr.  McCune.  No  "human  modifications,"  again  his 
friend  insists.  Mr.  McCune  appeals  to  the  naked  texts. 
His  friend  receives  them,  but  understands  them  differently, 
and  adds.  You  have  taught,  Mr  McCune,  that  a  man  may 
be  a  true  Christian  and  not  believe  in  the  humanity  of 
Christ.  Will  you  receive  me?  Christ  has  received  me. 
Come  in,  says  Mr.  MCune,  I  had  forgotten  that  article  of 
our  belief,  but  come  in  ;  you  give  satisfactory  scripture 
evidence  that  Christ  has  received  you, and  though  we  differ 
on  non-essentials,  we  will  treat  you  "  with  forbearance  in 
love."  Next  comes  a  friend  who  has  doubts  as  to  the 
Deity  of  Christ,  and  whom  Mr.  McCune  refuses  to  call 
evangelical.  Will  you  receive  me,  says  he,  to  the  glory  of 
God,  at  Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout?  "Christ,"  says 
Mr.  MCune,  "  was  very  God  as  well  as  very  man."  No 
"human  deductions,"  retorts  the  Unitarian.  Christ  has  re- 
ceived me.  I  believe  the  Bible  is  infallible,  but  understand 
it  ditferently  from  you.  Mr.  McCune  appeals  to  the  texts. 
The  Unitarian  accepts  the  "  language  of  God."  Will  you 
receive  me?  he  cries.  You  are  not  "evangelical,"  says  Mr. 
McCune.  "  Evangelical,"  exclaims  his  friend.  If  you  ad- 
mit one  who  does  not  believe  in  the  humanity  of  Christ, 
how  refuse  me  because  I  do  not  believe  in  the  Deity  of 
Christ?  I  believe 'in  Christ  without  any  human  deduc- 
tions, or  inferences,  or  modifications.  I  understand  the 
language  of  God  differently  from  you.  I  believe  with  the 
Semi-Arians  and  three-fourths  of  the  Christian  Church  in 
the  fourth  century.  Will  you  receive  me?  Just  at  this 
point  a  Universalist  steps  up  to  solicit  the  same  favor  of 
admission  to  the  church  on  the  Mount.  "  They  who  die 
impenitent  are  lost  forever,"  says  Mr.  McCune.  No  "  hu- 
man deductions,"  cries  the  Universalist.  I  believe  that 
Christ  has  received  me,  and  that  none  will  be  finally  lost. 


[78] 

I  accept  all  your  texts ;  you  need  not  repeat  them.  "Will 
you  receive  me  ? 

By  what  right,  on  what  ground,  I  ask,  granting  Mr. 
McCune's  creed  of  unexplained  texts,  can  he  refuse  to  re- 
ceive the  Unitarian  and  Universalist,  while  he  cordially 
admits  the  man  who  neither  believes  the  Bible  is  infallible, 
nor  that  Christ  was  truly  and  properly  man  ?  Is  it  because 
Mr.  McCune's  human  deductions  are  different  from  theirs  ? 
But  he  has  no  right  to  any  deductions  in  this  matter  what- 
ever. Is  it  because  they  dispute  those  deductions  ?  But 
they  accept  the  language  of  God.  Is  it  because  they  don't 
accept  the  language  of  God  as  "  commonly  received  ?  " 
But  neither  does  he  who  does  not  believe  the  Bible  infalli- 
ble, nor  the  true  humanity  of  Christ,  and  yet  Mr.  McCune 
would  receive  them.  Is  it  because  they  have  no  genuine 
New  Testament  creed  ?  They  all  say  "  the  Bible  is  my 
creed."  Is  it  because  they  are  in  a  minority  ?  So  was 
Athanasius  and  the  Orthodox  of  the  fourth  century.  I 
affirm,  there  is  not  an  errorist  in  the  list  of  them  all,  for 
eighteen  centuries,  that  Mr.  McCune's  creed-theory  can 
consistently  reject,  and  I  present  the  phenomenon  of  Mr. 
McCune  as  a  Presbyterian  minister  for  "  ten  years,"  advo- 
cating these  views  and  announcing  his  purpose  to  continue 
their  advocacy. 

Mr.  McCune's  whole  doctrine  about  creeds,  is  the  doc- 
trine of  ever}'  heresiarch  from  the  days  of  Arius  and  Pe- 
lagius  to  the  present  time.  "  The  Bible  is  my  creed,"  is 
the  standing  word  in  the  mouth  of  every  perverter  of  its 
truth.  The  Unitarian,  the  Socinian,  the  Universalist,  the 
Swedenborgian  all  say,  "  the  Bible  is  my  creed."  Every 
one  of  them  will  accept  the  naked  texts  without  what  Mr. 
McCune  calls  "  human  deductions."  Mr.  McCune's  denial 
of  the  right  of  the  Church  to  "  enlarge  "  her  creed,  is  the 
denial  of  her  right  to  make  any  creed  at  all,  for  the  right 
to  make  a  creed  involves  the  right  to  enlarge  it,  and  the 
denial  of  the  right  to  make  is  the  denial  of  the  right  to 
enlarge.  But  what  is  the  nature  of  this  denial  ?  It  is  the 
denial  of  the  church's  right  to  make,  as  a  church,  a  public 
confession  of  her  faith  in   Christ,  for  the  right  to  make  a 


[79] 

creed  is  grounded  in  the  right  of  confession.  The  Church 
must  confess  Christ,  Mr.  McCune  will  say,  but  she  must 
not  confess  her  faith  in  Christ,  or  tell  what  that  faith  is. 
She  must  confess  distributively,  i.  e.,  by  her  individual 
members,  but  not  collectively  and  ofHcially  througli  her 
ministry,  except  in  "  the  language  of  God."  It  is  tjje  de- 
nial of  her  right,  as  steward  of  the  heavenly  mysteries,  to 
authoritatively  decide,  under  the  influence  of  a  guiding 
Spirit,  between  w^hat  is  truth  and  what  is  falsehood  in  the 
public  teaching  of  her  ministry,  and  to  authoritatively 
bear  witness  in  her  own  words,  or  testify  on  the  stand  as  a 
witness-bearer  does  in  his  own  language,  what  her  under- 
standing and  belief  are  concerning  the  doctrine  of  God.  It 
assails  the  office  of  the  Church  as  a  public  teacher,  witness 
and  confessor  of  the  truth  ;  for  the  relation  of  the  Church 
to  the  Bible  is  more  than  that  of  the  preserver  and  guardian 
of  the  volume,  and  her  mission,  as  a  witness  and  instructor 
to  the  world,  is  more  than  that  of  a  compiler  of  a  few  un- 
explained texts,  or  a  minimum  quid  statement,  the  lowest  and 
least  expression  on  which  a  sinner  may  be  saved.  Her 
office  is  to  furnish  the  maximum  quid  of  her  faith,  the 
largest  possible  expression  of  her  religious  consciousness 
and  belief,  and  to  have  relation,  in  her  whole  confession 
before  men,  not  merely  to  the  simple  conditions  of  personal 
salvation,  but  to  the  whole  compass  of  the  divine  plan,  the 
whole  sphere  of  the  heavenly  doctrine,  and  the  whole  ex- 
tent of  her  work  as  a  light  in  the  world.  The  diadem  of 
titles  that  adorn  the  brow  of  Christ,  he  has  placed  ou  the 
brow  of  his  church.  She  is  with'him,  her  Divine  Lord, 
the  light,  the  witness,  the  prophet,  the  priest,  the  king,  the 
life  of  the  world. 

Mr.  McCune  has  not  yet  learned  that  the  Bible  is  not  a 
creed,  and  never  can  be  any  man's  creed,  and  that  this  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  it  is  of  all  Evan- 
gelical Protestantism.  The  case  was  never  yet  known  in 
history,  where  a  man  boasted  "  the  Bible  is  my  creed," 
that  the  boast  was  not  used  as  a  shield  of  unevangelical 
views  and  doctrines,  or  a  cloak  for  indifferentism  and  toler- 
ation of  error.     The  Bible  is  no  man's  creed,  and  can  be 


[80] 

no  man's  creed,  for  the  Bible  is  the  expression  of  God's 
will,  whereas  a  creed  is  the  expression  of  man's  faith. 
Splendidly  has  Dr.  Schaff,  following  the  Reformed  Divines, 
said,  "  The  Bible  is  the  word  of  God  to  man  ;  the  creed  is  the 
answer  of  man  to  God.  The  Bible  is  the  only  sufficient  Rule 
of  Faith  ;  the  Creed  is  the  Rule  of  public  doctrine  derived 
from  the  Bible."  It  is  no  exaltation  of  human  authority 
over  the  Divine  word,  but  a  subjection  of  the  human  under- 
standiiig'  and  faith  to  Divine  truth,  for  the  creed  is  ever  and 
only,  in  the  language  of  Reformers,  mensura  meiisurata — 
the  rule  ruled — while  the  Bible  is  mensura  mensurans — the 
rule  ruling.  So  Dr.  Krautb,  in  his  "  Conservative  Reforma- 
tion." Tlie  Rule  of  Faith  is  God's  voice  to  us.  Faith  is 
the  henring  of  that  voice.  The  Confession  is  our  reply. 
To  confess  Christ  is  to  confess  ivhat  is  our  faith  in  Him.  As 
the  creed  is  not,  and  can  not  be,  the  Rule  of  Faith,  but  its 
confession,  so  the  Bible,  because  it  is  the  Rule  of  Faith,  is, 
of  necessity,  not  its  confession.  The  Bible  can  no  more  be 
any  man's  creed  than  the  stars  can  be  any  man's  astron- 
omy." This  is  the  doctrine  of  our  standards,  underlying 
every  expression  I  have  quoted  from  them.  It  is  not  Mr. 
McCune's  doctrine.  And  as  to  the  outcry  of  Mr.  McCune 
against  the  growth  and  enlargement  of  a  creed,  so  far  from 
this  being  a  "  Popish  usurpation,"  and  every  argument  in 
its  defense  a  "  falsity,"  and  the  thing  itself  "  an  unblushing 
assumption  of  Divine  prerogative,"  if  he  will  but  read  the 
Scriptures,  he  will  find  not  only  human-made  Christian 
creeds  in  abundance,  but,  as  Dr.  Bannerman  has  well 
shown,  that,  even  during  the  Apostolic  age,  "  on  three  me- 
morable occasions,  the  Church  was  compelled  to  recast  and 
exhibit  in  new  forms  of  language  the  truth  formerly  held,  and 
compelled  to  do  this  because  of  the  perversion  to  error  and 
heresy  of  the  terms  formerly  employed  to  set  forth  the 
truth}'  The  Church  of  Christ,  Vol.  I.,  p.  292.  What, 
then,  becomes  of  the  assertion  of  Mr.  McCune,  contradicted 
by  every  leaf  of  histor}'^,  sacred  and  profane,  that  saving 
faith,  ipso  facto,  excludes  all  fatal  heresy,  and  that  as  the 
"  brief  creed  "  (!)  of  the  Apostles  was  sufficient  to  exclude 
it  in  their  day,  "  so  it  is  sufficient  now  !"     If  it  is  answered 


[81] 

that  inspired  Apostles  might  make  a  creed,  but  not  unin- 
spired men,  let  Mr.  McCune  remember  that  the  stream  be- 
tween Jerusalem  and  Gaza  beheld  the  Abyssinian  baptized 
by  Piiilip  upon  the  Abyssinian's  own  human-made  creed; 
and  let  him  further  remember  that  not  the  tact  of  inspira- 
tion, but  the  pressing  need  of  the  Church,  was  the  ground 
for  creed-enlargement  and  restatement  in  Apostolic  days, 
a  need  existing  subsequently  as  well  as  then,  and  its  sup- 
ply warranted  in  every  age  by  Apostolic  practice.  What 
had  become  of  pure  doctrine,  on  Mr.  McCune's  principle 
of  no  iiuman  creed,  in  the  fourth  century,  when  the  Church, 
to  use  the  words  of  Jerome,  "  woke  up  to  lind  itself  Arian?" 
or  again,  woke  up  to  find  itself  Pelagian  ?  or,  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  woke  up  to  find  itself  Pagan  ?  Were  Athan- 
asius,  Augustin,  Luther,  Calvin,  "  unblushing  usurpers  uf 
the  Divine  prerogative  ?"  So  teaches  a  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter who  subscribes  the  Westminster  Confession. 

Mr.  McCnne  charges  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  com- 
mon with  all  other  evangelical  denominations,  as  being  an 
oppressor  of  the  conscience,  because,  by  denominational 
law,  she  recognizes  conformity  to  her  standards,  and  binds 
them  on  her  ofiicial  ministry.  It  is  a  severe  charge.  But 
whose  conscience  is  oppressed?  Kot  mine.  Not  the  con- 
science of  any  who  sincerely  adopt  the  standards.  Does 
she  oppress  the  conscience  of  the  members  of  this  Presby- 
tery ?  Are  what  Mr.  McCune  calls  her  human  deductions 
and  inferences  "contrary"  to  the  word  of  God?  She  de- 
clares they  are  "  agreeable  to  the  word  or  God,"  and  Mr. 
McCune  has  professed  sincerely  to  adopt  them  as  such.  Has 
he  yet  to  learn  that  what  is  deduced  by  good  and  necessary 
consequence  from  Scripture  is  Scriptural?  Concede,  if  you 
will,  that  all  other  creeds  are  an  oppression  of  the  con- 
science, is  our  own  amenable  to  that  charge?  The  funda- 
mentals of  the  Presbyterian  Church  are  her  creed,  her  stan- 
dards, and  nothing  less,  all  professedly  adopted  and  ap- 
proved by  Mr.AlcCune.  Again,  I  ask,  whose  conscience  is  op- 
pressed ?  The  allegation  betrays  the  fact  of  Mr.  McCune's 
practical  and  avowed  abandonment  of  the  distinctive  Creed, 
Government,  and  Discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 


[82] 

while  yet  remaining  ia  her  bosom,  an  abandonment  began 
years  ago.  The  Presbyterian  Church  repels  the  libel  from 
the  lips  of  her  own  son,  to  whom  she  has  yielded  almost 
boundless  license,  that  she  is  an  oppressor  of  the  conscience. 
ITever  once  bus  she  interfered  with  his  right  of  private 
judgment,  even  when  insisting  on  her  own  rights  of  au- 
thoritative instruction,  and  on  her  right  to  interfere  and  re- 
strain his  public  conduct.  N"everonce  has  she  said  to  any 
man,  you  shall  adopt  my  creed,  you  shall  submit  to  my  gov- 
ernment. What  she  has  said  is,  if  you  can  honestly  and 
sincerely  adopt  and  approve  the  Standards,  then  welcome 
here.  If  you  can  not,  then  let  us  remain  apart  in  peace. 
The  applicant  for  ministerial  office  can  find  another  home 
more  congenial  among  the  people  of  God.  But  if  the 
proposal  is  accepted,  she  demands  that  good  faith  shall  be 
kept,  and  no  "  Trojan  Horse  "  introduced  within  her  walls 
to  betray  her.  Mr.  McCune  pleads  rights  of  conscience. 
Rights  of  conscience  are  not  rights  of  membership.  Rights 
of  conscience  are  not  rights  to  profess  one  thing  and 
practice  another.  He  pleads  the  right  of  private  judgment. 
The  right  of  private  judgment  is  not  the  right  of  belonging 
to  this  Presbytery  and  advocating  "  no  creed  "  and  a  polity 
at  war  with  our  Constitution.  Detraction  is  not  a  right  of 
private  judgment.  The  Arian's  right  of  private  judgment 
gives  him  no  right  here.  A  man  may  hav^  the  right  of  private 
judgment  and  not  be  able  to  tell  the  diflerence  between 
Presbyterian  ism  and  Popery.  He  may  be  a  simpleton. 
The  possession  of  the  right  does  not  confer  the  thing.  A 
beggar  may  have  a  right  to  be  rich  and  a  foolish  man  to  be 
wise,  and  yet  the  one  remain  poor,  and  the  other  a  simple- 
ton, all  their  days.  A  man  may  have  the  right  to  be  a  Pres- 
byterian and  yet  be  a  Cardinal  or  Pope.  Does  the  right  of 
private  judgment  make  him  a  Presbyterian,  or  does  it  give 
him  a  right  to  profess  to  be  what  he  is  not?  or  to  be  where 
he  has  no  right  to  be?  The  right  to  membership  in  this 
Presbytery  does  not  rest  on  the  right  of  private  judgment, 
nor  on  the  right  of  conscience.  It  rests  upon  sincere  and 
honest  adoption  and  approval  of  her  Standards,  and  upon 
the  zealous  and  faithful  maintaining  the  peace,  purity,  and 


[83] 

unity  of  the  Church,  It  rests  upon  the  solemnity  of  a  per- 
sonal vow  that  the  man  is  a  Presbyterian  by  conviction,  and 
in  heart,  and  not  a  mere  wearer  of  the  name,  one-third  Pres- 
byterian, one-third  Papal,  and  one-third  Independent  in  his 
theories.  A  Presbyterian  minister  is  a  man  whose  Rule  of 
Faith  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  whose  creed  is  the  West- 
minster Standards.  Is  this  Mr.  McCune's  description?  I 
aver  that  if  the  ministry  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  were 
allowed  to  teach  and  to  do  as  Mr.  McCune  has  been 
allowed  to  teach  and  to  do,  in  reference  to  the  question  of 
creeds  alone,  and  to  traduce  the  denominational  enactments 
and  laws  of  their  own  Church  as  "sectarian,"  and  as  an  op- 
pression of  the  conscience,  and  publicly  recommend  the 
"striking  out"  of  every  thing  that  all  other  Christians 
"  can  not  see  to  be  law  in  Scripture,"  a  generation  would 
not  pass  away  until  the  treacherous  hand  of  organic  union, 
preferring  Union  before  Truth,  had  laid  it  in  its  grave. 
Already,  by  public  utterance,  he  remands  to  what  he  calls 
"  the  broad  and  free  domain  of  Christian  liberty,"  under 
her  no-creed  system,  every  thing  distinctively  settled  in  the 
Presbyterian  Standards,  as  to  "  man's  relation  to  God's 
sovereignty,  forms  of  making  religious  profession,  modes  of 
worship,  subjects  of  Baptism,  methods  of  organization,  kinds 
and  functions  of  Church-officers."  He  is  looking  for  "greater 
light."  Is  this  loyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  Is  this 
maintenance  of  her  doctrine  and  order?  "  Strike  out"  all 
that,  and  how  much  is  left  of  the  Standards  ?  I  pass  to  the 
fourth  Specification. 

SPECIFICATION   IV.. 

Vows  of  Ordination. 

This  Specification  asserts  the  teaching  of  Mr.  McCuue  to 
be  that  Presb3^terian  ministers,  under  solemn  vows  to  study 
the  peace,  unit}^  and  purity  of  the  Church,  are  yet  free  to 
advocate  views  antagonistic  to  those  they  have  vowed  to 
maintain,  and  still  remain  in  their  ecclesiastical  connexion, 
while  they  who  object,  should  themselves  retire  from  the 
body,  if  not  content  to  indulge  such  liberty.  The  ever- 
varying  axis  of  rotation  for  elders,  ministers,  and  deacons, 


[84] 

upon  such  a  principle,  would  reverse  the  ecclesiastical  poles 
themselves.  The  ecclesiastical  orbit,  uuder  such  a  theory, 
may  be  a  circle,  an  ellipse,  a  parabola,  or  an  infinitely  un- 
returning  hyperbola,  and  the  minister  himself  become,  in 
doctrine,  like  the  comet-forms  that  sail  and  sweep  the  in- 
terplanetary spaces.  According  to  Mr.  McCune,  a  Presby- 
terian minister  is  at  liberty,  after  his  ordination,  to  hold 
"any  views"  he  held  before  his  ordination,  and  advocate 
the  same.  His  doctrine  is  that  ministerial  vows  are  not 
binding.  Under  the  manifestly  "sophistical  form  of  expres- 
sion, "  the  Church  only  asks  men,  at  their  ordination,  what 
ihexY 'present  views  are,  and  never  pledges  them  not  to  change 
their  views"  he  teaches  that  every  Presbyterian  minister 
may  face  about  to  the  full  extent  of  his  own  variations 
and  yet  remain  in  the  body  for  the  sake  of  indorsement 
and  good  standing.  The  clearly  implied  assertion  is  that 
such  liberty  is  consistent  with  ministerial  obligations.  He 
suggests  to  an  objector  to  his  "  views,"  "  course,"  "  scheme,'^ 
"  project,"  and  "  aim,"  that  the  proper  solution  of  the  objec- 
tion is  for  the  objector  himself  to  retire.  He  proposes, 
with  a  cool  temperature,  that  his  name  ^^  shall  stand  on  the 
roll  of  tJje  Presbytery  "  as  long  as  he  is  in  its  bounds.  He 
declares  that  to  ask  a  man  not  to  advocate  what  he,  an  in- 
dividual, believes  to  be  God's  truth,  is  to  ask  him  to  dis- 
obey God,  and  that  if  Presbytery  requires  him  to  renounce 
opinions  and  ways  destructive  in  her  judgment  to  the 
peace,  unity,  and  purity  of  the  Church,  she  will  sit  "  in  the 
Temple  of  God,"  and  show  herself  "as  God"  over  his 
conscience.  He  announces  definitely  for  all  time  that  he 
will  never  submit  to  such  "  usurpation  of  the  Divine  pre- 
rogative," and  informs  the  court  that  he  "  proposes  "  still 
to  advocate  his  peculiar  views.  He  pleads  the  prestige 
his  doctrines  have  won  from  the  official  circulation  of  them 
ordered  by  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati  in  1870,  the  first  Synod 
after  the  Heunion,  and  seeks  shelter  behind  that  body  as 
the  ecclesiastical  indorser  of  his  Organic  Union  principles. 
He  pleads  the  countenance  and  concurrence  of  this  Pres- 
bytery. He  says :  "  It  is  susceptible  of  proof  that  the  ad- 
vocacy of  these  Christian   Union  doctrines  has  been  with 


[85] 

the  knowledge  and  by  the  permission  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Cincinnati,  and  by  the  consent  and  with  the  co-operation 
of  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati,  and  that  this  advocacy  is  not 
in  violation  of  any  Presbyterian  law  whatever."  Collateral 
'No.  4.  Such  is  the  ground  on  which  he  establishes  his 
claim  to  teach  and  preach  his  peculiar  views,  and  advocate 
their  necessary  and  legitimate  consequences.  Briefly  stated, 
his  doctrine  is  that  ordination  vows  do  not  bind  Presbyter- 
ian ministers,  while  remaining  under  them,  not  to  become 
anti-Presbyterian,  nor  to  abstain  from  the  public  proclama- 
tion of  their  new  departures  froru  the  faith  and  order  of  the 
Church. 

It  is  not  the  first  time  such  license  has  been  proclaimed 
in  the  world,  but  it  is  the  first  time,  in  the  history  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  that  any  Presbyterian  minister  has 
ever  dared  publicly  to  utter  such  sentiments  and  remain  un- 
challenged either  by  his  Presbytery  or  Synod  for  "  tea 
years."  It  is  a  feature  of  our  times.  It  is  non-enforce- 
ment, the  result  of  the  new  non-excluding  law  of  organ- 
ization. 

The  vows  of  Mr.  McCune  are  solemn  and  unambiguous. 
They  are  the  vows  of  every  Presbyterian  minister,  elder,. 
and  deacon — a  solemn  covenant  between  himself  and  the 
whole  Presbyterian-  Church,  and  every  individual  officer  in 
it,  before  which  he  stands  charged  to-day  for  breach  of  that 
covenant,  Christ,  his  brethren,  the  Church,  and  the  world,, 
being  witnesses.  The  vows  of  Mr.  McCune  in  the  United 
Presbyterian  Church,  of  which  he  was  a  member,  and 
which  he  took,  expressly  bound  him  to  "  adhere  to  the 
"Westminster  Standards,  so  long  as  he  remained  in  that 
body.  The  vows  of  our  own  church  bind  to  the  same  ad- 
herence every  one  of  its  ministers.  Their  education  is  to 
this  end,  as  also  their  examinations,  trials,  licensure,  ordi- 
nation, and  installation.  They  not  only  declare  that  they 
"  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  con- 
taining the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures," and  that  they  "  approve  of  the  government  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  these  United  States," 
but  they  vow  solemnly  before  God  and  the  Presbytery  ta 


[86] 

<'  study  the  peace,  unity,  and  purity  of  the  Church,"  and  to 
be  "  zealous  and  faithful  "  in  maintaining  the  same.  Di- 
gest, pp.  399,  410,  411.  All  this,  replies  Mr.  McCune,  does 
not  involve  continued  adherence  to  views  professed  at  the 
time  of  ordination.  He  claims  that  "any  views"  a  man 
may  have  entertained  '•'■before  "  he  comes  into  the  Church, 
lie  has  a  right  to  hold  and  advocate  after  he  comes  in." 
(Spec.  YI,  Proof  3.)  Moderator  and  brethren,  all  this 
pleading  is  worse  than  a  quibble.  It  is  evasion  and  bad 
faith.  It  is  inconsistent  with  honor,  truth,  the  precepts  of 
the  gospel,  and  loyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  True, 
the  Church  does  not  pledge  any  minister  "  not  to  change  his 
meivs,"  but  she  does  pledge  him,  in  his  vows  of  ordination, 
to  '^  study"  her  "peace,  unity,  and  purity,"  to  be  "  zealous 
and  faithful  in  maintaining"  these,  as  also  in  his  vow  to 
"  submit  "  to  her  authority,  to  respect  her  "  denominational 
laws,"  and  her  "  organic  enactments,"  which  not  only  re- 
quire the  teaching  of  her  doctrine  and  polity,  but  forbid  the 
teaching  of  anything  contrary  thereto.  He  is  not  at  lib- 
erty publicly  to  exclaim  against  her  distinctive  tenets  and 
laws  as  sinful  sectarianism,  and  deny  her  right  of  distinctive 
existence.  He  is  not  at  liberty  to  advocate  the  dropping 
ofi"  of  her  Presbyterian  peculiarities  for  the  sake  of  "  Or- 
ganic Union."  They  are  not  "  mere  peculiarities;"  they  are 
vital  to  her  system  and  to  the  truth  of  God.  JSTo.  Vows 
do  not  bind  any  man  "  not  to  change  "  his  views,  but  a  change 
of  views  does  bind  every  honorable  man  to  ask  a  re- 
lease from  the  vows  he  took  to  advocate  the  old  views  he 
has  now  abandoned,  and  not  to  advocate  the  new  ones  he 
has  embrace'd.  Apply  Mr.  McCune's  views  of  liberty  to 
the  oaths  of  Federal  and  State  officers  to  support  the  Na- 
tional Constitution,  and  to  our  Theological  Professors  to 
maintain  the  Standards  of  the  Church,  and  then  imagine 
the  result !  The  doctrine  is  treason  in  both  cases.  It  was 
for  the  purpose  of  binding  to  adherence  and  non-departure 
from  sound  doctrine  our  Standards  were  adopted  by  the 
fatliers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  land.  It  was  in 
the  overture  of  John  Thompson,  a  sire,  for  aught  I  know, 
-of  the  respected  elder  you  have  put  on  this  Committee  of 


[  87  ] 

Prosecution,  and  at  a  time  when  the  infant  Church  hnd  no 
written  Constitution,  in  1728,  preliminary  to  the  Adopting 
Act,  that  he  besought  the  General  Synod  "to  publicly  and 
authoritatively  adopt  the  "Westminster  Confession  and  Cat- 
echisms," and  then  "  to  oblige  every  Presbytery  within 
their  bounds  to  oblige  every  candidate  for  the  ministry  to 
acknowledge,  coram  Presbyterio,  the  said  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  next,  "  to  promise  not  to  teach  or  'preach  anything 
contrary  to  it."  Baird's  Digest,  29.  Did  this  mean  non- 
adherence  ?  The  Constitution  was  adopted  and  the  vows 
were  taken.  Is  contemporaneous  exposition  an  authority? 
Is  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Church  an  authority  ?  ]^on- 
adherence!  What  means  the  act  of  1758,  "strictly  enjoin- 
ing it  on  all  our  members  and  probationers  for  the  ministry 
that  they  preach  and  teach  according  to  the  form  of  sound 
words  in  said  Confession  and  Catechism,  and  avoid  and  oppose 
all  errors  contrary  thereto,"  and  if  their  consciences  will  not 
permit  them  to  allow  any  matter  determined  bj'^  the  major 
vote  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  to  "  peacably  withdraw." 
Digest,  p.  48.  What  means  the  solemn  pledge  which,  in 
1819,  the  Presbyterian  Church  imposed  upon  her  Theolog- 
ical Professors,  to  whom  she  was  about  to  intrust  the  train- 
ing of  her  ministry?  Was  it  consistent  with  non-adher- 
ence ?  Does  it  allow  Professors  to  drop  off  the  distinctive 
features  of  Presbyterian  doctrine  and  polity  in  their  in- 
struction, or  encourage  her  ministry  in  a  disorganizing 
course  she  would  not  herself  tolerate  for  a  moment  ?  I 
will  repeat  it.  "  In  the  presence  of  God  and  of  the  Direc- 
tors of  this  Seminary,  I  do  solemnly  and  ex  animo  adopt, 
receive,  and  subscribe  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Cate- 
chisms of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  as  the  Confession  of  my  Faith,  or  as  a  summary 
and  just  exhibition  of  that  system  of  religious  belief  which 
is  contained  in  Holy  Scripture,  and  therein  revealed  by 
God  to  man  for  his  salvation  ;  and  I  do  solemnly,  ex  animo, 
profess  to  receive  the  Form  of  Government  of  said  Church 
as  agreeable  to 'the  inspired  oracles.  And  I  do  solemnly 
promise  and  engage  not  to  inculcate,  teach,  or  insinuate 
anything  which  shall  appear  to  me  to  contradict  or  contra- 


[88] 

vene,  either  directly  or  impliedly,  anything  taught  in  the 
said  Confession  of  Faith  or  Catechism,  nor  to  oppose  any 
of  the  fundamental  principles  of  Presbyterian  Church  Gov- 
ernment, while  I  shall  continue  a  Professor  in  this  Semi- 
nary." Digest,  p.  377.  Why  bind  her  instructors  so 
strictly  unless  that  she  might  also  have  a  ministry  trained, 
without  equivocation,  to  the  faithful  maintenance  of  her 
Standards?  What  means  the  act  of  1825,  that  "  ministers 
who  manifested  a  decided  hostility  to  ecclesiastical  creeds, 
confessions,  and  formularies,"  shall  also  "  withdraw  ?"  Di- 
gest, p.  55.  Does  it  mean  non-adherence?  What  means 
the  vested  right  of  the  Presbytery,  inscribed  in  the  Consti- 
tution, "  to  condemn  erroneous  opinions  which  injure  the 
purity  or  peace  of  the  Church,"  i.  e.,  which  conflict  with 
the  solemn  vows  to  study  and  maintain  that  purity  and 
peace,  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  order,  if  it  does  not  mean 
adherence  to  the  Standards  ?  What  means  that  other  pos- 
itive obligation  on  the  Synod  to  compel  the  Presbyteries  to 
"preserve"  and  enforce  the  Constitution,  which  is  the  sole 
bond  of  our  union  ;  and  that  other  of  the  Assembly  to 
deal  with  every  Presbytery  and  Synod  derelict  herein  ?  Di- 
gest, pp.  144,  191,  218.  But  I  forbear  to  expand  the  law 
references  on  this  point; 

The  doctrine  of  Mr.  McCune  as  to  non-adherence,  with 
liberty  to  remain  in  the  body,  is  twin-sister  of  his  doctrine 
of  non-enforcement.  It  is  disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  intensilied  by  the  lordly  utterance,  "It  is  useless  to 
make  any  intimations  to  me  on  this  subject.  I  propose  that 
my  name  shall  stand  on  the  roll  of  this  Presbytery  so  long 
as  I  remain  in  Cincinnati  or  vicinity." 

One  other  remark  germane  to  this  point.  It  is  the  habit 
of  the  advocates  of  so-called  "  liberty  "  in  teaching  the  Pres- 
byterian faith  and  order,  to  plead  that  in  their  vows  of  or- 
dination they  only  subscribe  to  a  "  system  "  of  doctrine  as 
"  contained  "  in  the  confession.  The  emphasis  is  put  upon 
the  word  "system."  Mr.  McCune  has  used  it  abundantly. 
It  is  a  grievous  misfortune  for  Mr.  McCune  in  the  first  place 
that  even  this  shelter  for  his  new  doctrines  will  not  avail 
him,  for  he  holds  that  denominations,  as  such,  are  "  essen- 


[89] 

tially  sinful,"  and  have  no  scriptural  right  either  to  a  dis- 
tinctive "  system  "  of  doctrine  or  to  a  distinctive  existence. 
Upon  his  own  showing,  he  has  no  right  even  to  take  a  vow 
to  maintain  a  distinctive  "  system  "  of  doctrine,  let  alone 
objecting  to  the  doctrines  of  the  system  !  He  is  utterly  op- 
posed to  "  human  deductions,"  system  or  no  system.  To 
plead  that  he  will  maintain  the  distinctive  system  he  de- 
clares has  no  right  to  exist,  because  the  denomination  it 
represents  has  none,  is  simply  to  convict  himself  of  self- 
contradiction.  If  he  maintains  the  "  system  "  has  a  right 
to  exist,  then  the  denomination  built  on  that  system  has  a 
right  to  exist  also.  If  he  maintains  the  denomination,  as 
such,  has  no  right  to  exist,  then  the  system  goes  along  with 
it.     Either  way  the  interpleader  is  vain. 

But,  granting  Mr.  McCune  the  benefit  of  his  contradic- 
tion, how  can  ordination  vows  bind  to  maintain  the  "  sys- 
tem "  of  doctrine,  and  not  bind  to  maintain  the  "doctrines 
of  the  system?"  A  "  system  of  doctrine"  is  a  science  of 
doctrine,,all  whose  parts  are  organically  related,  each  one 
of  whose  doctrines  is  necessary  to  the  integrity  of  the  sys- 
tem, and  all  which  are  inseparabl}'  linked  with  the  funda- 
mental principles  and  facts  on  which  it  rests.  The  system 
of  doctrine  in  its  integrity  is  the  sum  total  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  system  organically  bound  together,*  To  explain 
away  the  doctrines,  is  to  impair  the  integrity  of  the  system. 
To  impair  the  integrity  of  the  doctrines  is  to  impair  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  system.  How  can  Mr.  McCune  advocate  the 
doctrines  he  holds,  and  yet  claim  that  he  holds  to  the  sys- 
tem of  doctrine,  and  so  keep  his  vows  inviolate?  It  is  im- 
possible.   If,  by  non-adherence,  you  take  away  one  doctrine, 

you  may  take  away  two;  if  two,  you  may  take  away  ten; 

. : ■  ■ 

*■  It  was  argued,  and  confidently  asserted,  by  Mr.  McCune  and  many 
others  in  Presbytery,  that  the  last  twelve  chapters  of  our  Confession  do  not 
belong  to,  and  make  no  part  of  our  "system  of  doctrine,"  and  that  Dr. 
Charles  Hodge,  of  Princeton,  so  teaches,  in  the  Princeton  Eeview;  and 
that,  therefore,  Mr.  McCune's  peculiar  views  about  the  Nature  of  the  Church, 
the  Covenant  of  God  with  believers,  Infant  Baptism,  Infant  Church-mem- 
bership, the  binding  and  perpetual  obligation  of  the  Sacraments,  etc.,  etc., 
did  not  impair  the  integrity  of  our  nysteml  I  deem  it  but  just  to  the  name 
of  Dr.  Hodge,  to  append  this  note,  by  way  of  protest  against  the  perversioa 
of  his  words  so  persistently  made  in  order  to  find  a  shelter  and  defense  for 
Mr.  McCune.  T.  H.  S. 


[90] 

if  ten,  the  whole.  Can  a  man  who  denies  that  a  plurality 
of  congregations,  organically  bound  under  one  ecclesiastical 
rule,  is  "  a  church,"  maintain  the  integrity  of  our  system  o± 
polity  ?  He  denies  the  polity  itself.  Can  a  man  who  holds 
that  the  "  body  of  Christ "  is  the  "  visible  church,"  that  infants 
of  believers  are  not  members  of  the  church,  that  infant  bap- 
tism as  a  covenant  transaction  is  to  be  repudiated,  that  un- 
baptized  persons  may  become  members  of  the  church,  that 
a  man  may  be  a  christian  and  not  believe  either  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Bible  or  proper  humanity  of  Christ,  or  who 
remands  to  the  broad  domain  of  liberty,  "  modes  of  worship, 
subjects  of  baptism,  methods  of  organization,  kinds  and 
functions  of  church  officers,"  and  denies  the  scriptural  right 
of  Presbyterianism,  as  such,  can  such  an  one,  when  called 
to  account,  put  in  the  interpleader,  Oh  !  I  did  not  bind  my- 
self "  not  to  change  my  views,"  I  vowed  only  to  maintain 
the  system  of  Presbyterian  doctrine,  not  everything  in  the 
confession?  Moderator,  he  neither  holds  the  system  of 
doctrine,  nor  the  doctrines  of  the  system.  And  it. is  a  vain 
excuse  to  plead  conscience,^private  judgment,  and  a  liberty 
"unchallenged"  for  a  decade  of  years.  I  can  not  forbear 
to  quote  the  admirable  words  of  Dr.  Krauth  on  this  subject. 
*'  If  a  man,"  says  he,  '^  were  examined  as  a  candidate  for  a 
chair  of  astronomy  in  a  university,  and  were  asked,  '  What 
is  your  astronomical  system  ?'  and  were  to  answer,  'I  ac- 
cept the  teaching  of  the  stars,'  the  reply  would  be,  'You 
may  think  you  do ;  so  does  the  man  who  is  sure  that  the 
stars  move  round  the  world,  and  that  they  are  not  orbs,  but 
gimlet  holes  to  let  the  glory  through  !  We  wish  to  know 
what  you  hold  the  teaching  of  the  stars  to  bef  Do  you  re- 
ceive, as  in  harmony  with  them,  the  results  reached  by  Co- 
pernicus, Galileo,  Kepler,  Kewtbn,  Laplace,  and  Herschel, 
or  do  you  think  the  world  one  great  flat,  and  the  sun  and 
moon  mere  pendants  to  it?'  '  Gentlemen,'  replies  the  in- 
dependent investigator,  '  the  theories  of  astronomers  are 
human-made  systems — man-made  theories.  I  go  out  every 
night  on  the  hills  and  look  at  the  stars,  as  God  made  them, 
through  a  hole  in  my  blanket,  with  my  own  good  eyes,  not 
•with  a  man-made  telescope  or  fettered  by  a  man-made 
theory;  and  I  believe  in  the  stars  and  in  what  they  teach 


[91] 

me,  but  if  I  were  to  say  or  write  what  they  teach  me,  that 
would  be  a  human-made  creed,  and  I  am  opposed  to  all  creeds.' 
'Very  well,'  reply  the  examiners,  '  we  wish  you  a  good  pair 
of  eyes,  and  feel  it  unnecessary  to  go  any  further.  If  you 
are  unwilling  to  confess  your  faith,  we  will  not  tax  your 
conscience  with  the  inconsistency  of  teaching  tiiat  faith,  nor 
tax  our  own  with  the  hazard  of  authorizing  you  to  set 
forth,  in  tiie  name  of  the  stars,  your  own  ignorant  assump- 
tions about  them."  Conservative  Reformation,  p.  167. 
Think  of  an  astronomer  pledged  to  teach  the  Newtonian 
system,  pleading  Mr.  McCune's  argument!  Think  of  a 
Presbyterian  minister  pledged  to  teach  the  "  old  ancestral 
Calvinism,"  the  Standards,  "  pure  and  simple,"  the  Calvin- 
istic  system,  asserting  that  he  does  teach  that  "  system,'' 
and  so  keeps  his  ordination  vows,  while  yet  pleading  "the 
Bible  is  my  creed,"  "I  have  a  right  to  change  my  views," 
and  still  remain  unchallenged  on  the  roll  of  the  Presbytery  ! 
Were  commercial  business  to  be  transacted  on  such  inter- 
pretations of  promises  to  pa}',  the  whole  community  would 
be  wrecked.  There  is  not  a  business  man  in  tlie  world 
who  would  loan  to  another  an  amount  of  money,  under  such 
a  liberty  of  interpretation,  and  ever  expect  one  dollar  of  it 
to  return  to  his  hands.     I  pass  to  the  fifth  specification. 

SPECIFICATION   V. 

Plurality  of  Official  Membership. 
This  specification  reveals  a  new  planet  in  the  ecclesias- 
tical heavens,  and  one  of  baneful  omen.  It  is  an  admitted 
fact  that  every  planet  in  our  system  aflects  the  motions  of 
every  other  planet,  and  the  same  is  true  of  eveiy  denomi- 
nation. When  Uranus  was  discovered,  it  was  found  there 
was  something  still  aflecting  its  motions,  and  the  sugges- 
tion was  made  that  a  planet  beyond  itself  was  in  existence. 
Thaiiks  to  the  observations  of  Adams  and  Le  Vercier,  and 
the  superior  Berlin  star-map,  Keptune  was  discovered 
w^iirling  his  way  in  the  skies,  only  two  billion  seven  hun- 
dred thousand  miles  away  from  the  central  sun.  Tlie  dis- 
turbances of  our  Presbyterian  planet  here  have  awakened 
similar  suspicions,  and  all  eyes  have  been  on  the  Lookout 
to  discover,  if  possible,  the   reason   of  the  perturbations. 


[92] 

Your  Committee  of  Prosecution  announce  that  a  new  de- 
nomination exists,  much  nearer  to  ours  than  ]!Teptune  to 
the  sun,  and  that  its  singular  and  contradictory  law  of 
motion  is  this,  that  it  moves  in  the  orbits  of  every  other 
while  yet  claiming  to  move  in  one  of  its  own.  "Anti- 
denomination"  is  its  denomination.  "Official  Plurality" 
is  its  law.  It  is  an  ecclesiastical  phenomenon.  'Never 
before,  in  history,  was  such  a  thing  known — never  before 
in  morals.  It  is  an  absorber  and  disorganizer;  an  absorber 
in  that  it  feeds  upon  all  the  rest — a  disorganizer  in  that  it 
denies  their  right  to  exist,  accounting  all  creeds  but  its 
own  heretical  and  schismatical.  It  moves  in  the  hazy  at- 
mosphere of  "  Organic  Church  Union."  One  of  its  chief 
creators  in  these  parts  is  Mr.  McCune.  If  not  a  creation 
ex  nihilo,  it  is  a  development  ex  materia  prceexistente,  and  is 
claimed  to  be  the  Darwinian  fittest  to  survive.  The  stride 
of  progress  is  immense,  wider  than  the  steps  of  Homer's 
gods  in  space.  The  inhabitants  of  all  other  church  planets 
are  called  upon  to  keep  one  foot  in  their  own  denomina- 
tion and  plant  the  other  in  the  new,  claiming  still  that  they 
are  lawful  denizens  of  both.  If  any  choose  to  make  the 
full  spring  at  once,  all  well;  but  dismissed  or  undismissed, 
it  makes  no  difierence.  .For  private  members  and  public 
ministers,  two  consciences,  two  private  judgments,  two  con- 
flicting obligations,  two  communions,  two  creeds,  two  op- 
posing jurisdictions,  two  antagonizing  denominations,  plu- 
rality of  membership  and  plurality  of  office.  This  is  the 
doctrine  publicly  advocated  by  Mr.  McCune.  It  is  the  law 
of  a  strange  progeny,  bad  in  ethics,  self-ruinous  in  prac- 
tice, condemned  in  [Scripture.  It  is  the  central  device  of 
the  new  movement  whereby  its  advocates  hope  to  forestall 
the  recoil  of  tlieir  own  principle  upon  themselves;  an  in- 
genious hold-on-and-let-go  expedient  of  defense  against  the 
reproach  of  disorganization  ;  a  last-born  plea  wherewith  to 
refute  or  parry  the  charge,  that  while  professing  to  oppose 
all  distinctive  denominations  they  are  caught  in  the  very 
act  of  adding  one  more  to  the  list.  In  the  case  of  Mr. 
McCune,  it  is  the  profession  of  adherence  while  practicing 
non-adherence  to  the  Presbyterian  faith  and  order — a 
quicksand   foundation   on   which   to   build  his  claims  to 


[93] 

remain  on  the  roll  of  his  Presbytery  while  still  teaching 
that  it  is  an  unauthorized  and  extra-scriptural  body. 
The  mystery  of  the  organization  of  the  Linwood  and 
Mt.  Lookout  church  of  undismissed  church  members,  and 
the  equal  mystery  of  the  claim  of  Mr.  McCune,  as  an  en- 
rolled member  of  the  new  anti-denominational  association 
of  ministers  and  independent  churches,  to  not  sever  his 
denominational  relations,  is  completely  solved.  This  double 
back-acting  and  forward-acting  motion  at  one  and  the  same 
step  is  the  law  of  the  new  enterprise  and  a  fact  in  eccle- 
siology  unknown  before. 

The  fact  of  a  new  oriranization  is  abundantly  evinced 
by  the  proofs  under  the  specification.  The  extensive  ap- 
peal signed  by  Mr.  McCune  and  his  co-laborators  in  organic 
union,  and  madeto"all  the  Christian  ministers  and  chnrches 
iu  Il^orth  America,"  to  begin  the  organization  of  tlie  New 
Testament  Church,  is  now  in  court,  and  on  your  table.  The 
evidence  of  the  call  and  action  of  three  general  conventions 
at  New  York,  Cincinnati,  and  Sufiblk,  Va.,  in  this  interest, 
over  one  of  which  Mr.  McCune  presided  as  chairman,  is 
here.  The  additional  evidence  of  organization  atid  subscrip- 
tion to  the  "New  Basis,"  is  taken  from  Mr.  McCune's  own 
paper,  the  work  done  in  that  behalf  being  left  for  consider- 
ation under  the  Second  Charge.  The  recognition  of  the 
Texas  "plan  of  organization"  as  one  with  the  Cincinnati 
and  Suffolk  movement,  establishes  the  fact  of  "organiza- 
tion" beyond  a  question.  You  will  observe  caref'ull}^  the 
dates,  and  the  progress  of  the -work :  first,  the  "Address 
to  all  Christian  Ministers  and  Churches  in  North  America," 
signed  by  Mr.  McCune  and  otliers,  Oct.,  1874,  page  13  of 
the  case  ;  second,  the  three  general  conventions  respectively 
at  New  York,  Cincinnati,  and  Suffolk,  Va.,  Oct.,  1873, 
1874,  and  1875,  page  15  of  the  case  ;  third,  the  language  of 
the  Christian  Unity,  resumed  under  the  triple  editorship  of 
Dr.  Wellons,  Mr.  McCune  and  Mr.  Melish,  saying,  "  The 
Christian  Unity  begins  its  career  (again)  with  fixed  purposes 
and  aims,  etc.,"  and  '•'■we  must  organize,  band  ourselves  together 
as  ministers  and  churches,  etc.,''  Aug.  1875,  p.  15  of  the  case; 
fourth,  the  response  of  Mr.  McCune  to  Mr.  Thrall  admit- 
ting the  ^^organizing  by  actual  visible  oneness," Aug.  1875,  page 


[9i] 

15  of  the  case ;  fifth,  the  actual,  visible  organization  of  Lin- 
wood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Church,  and  the  publication  of  its 
basis  to  the  world,  Dec.  1875,  pp.  14  and  27  of  the  case. 
The  "project,"  scheme  and  "  aim,"  and  actual  "  organiza- 
tion" are  beyond  a  peradventure,  both  as  to  a  General  As- 
sociation of  Ministers  and  Churches,  and  as  to  a  particular, 
actual  and  visible  organization,  where  all  evangelical  Chris- 
tians were  to  be  received,  of  every  denomination,  the  Gos- 
pel preached,  candidates  trained  for  the  ministry,  and  ministers 
sent  out  into  the  world.  I  have  established  the  fact.  I  have 
given  the  data  of  the  approach  and  visible  outstanding  exist- 
ence of  the  new  planet  in  our  hemisphere.  The  remainder 
of  the  testimony  I  need  not  go  over.  The  "  initial  step" 
of  the  visible  embodiment  of  the  organic  union  principles 
in  the  new  anti-denoniinational  denomination  is  expressly 
shown  to  be  the  actual  reception  of  Christians  into  a  sepa- 
rate, independent  and  particular  society. 

The  law  of  this  organization  is  as  already  described. 
Ministers,  dismissed  or  undismissed  from  their  old  denom- 
inational relations,  are  received.  "Any  minister  who  has 
adopted  this  Basis,  but  does  not  deem  it  expedient  to  sever  ex- 
isting denominational  relations^  shall,  at  his  own  rr quest,  be  en- 
rolled., notwithstanding."  ,  Such  is  the  law.  "  Notwithstand- 
ing "  what  ?  !N'otwithstanding  his  solemn  vows  and  obli- 
gations to  the  denomination  where  he  belongs:  Signature  to 
the  Basis,  and  enrollment,  constitute  him,  ipso  facto,  a  stand- 
ing member  in  the  new  Association.  But  signatures  and 
enrollments  have  already  -been  made.  The  organization, 
the  "  banding  ourselves  together,"  with  the  "  Basis,"  as  a 
bond  of  union,  is  a  historical  fact.  What  shall  I  call  this 
law  of  plurality,  of  individual  ministerial  membership  in 
two  antagonizing  organizations — this  double  allegiance,  gen- 
uine in  the  one  case  and  spurious  in  the  other  ?  Will  historic 
congregational  "  usage,"  or  Dexter,  or  the  Boston  platform, 
cover  it?  IsTot  exactly.  Is  it  the  new  Oberlin  departure 
of  1871  abandoning  its  "Westminster  banner  precisely  for 
such  a  thing  as  this  ?  Then  we  know  indeed  what  the  char- 
acter of  that  new  departure  is.  Is  it  anarchy  ?  Will  Pres- 
byterian usage  cover  it  ?  Not  exactly.  The  same  limita- 
tions are  found  here  also.     Will  "  Independent  Presbyter- 


[95] 

ianism  "  cover  it  ?  Not  exactly.  The  thing  is  a  phenomenon. 
What  shall  I  call  it,  this  advocacy  of  plural  and  antagonizing 
responsibilities,  the  profession  of  loyalty  and  sincerity  in  all, 
while  the  last  aim  at  the  ruin  of  the  first  ?  When  I  say  it 
is  a  "  Trojan  Horse  "  introduced  into  this  Presbytery,  I  say 
all  that  need  be  said.  The  moral  character  of  that  trans- 
action speaks  for  itself.  "  Timeo  Daiiaos  et  dona  fereiites!  " 
When  I  affirm  that  such  a  law  of  double  and  conflicting 
jurisdiction  is  advocated  by  a  Presbyterian  minister,  with 
the  express  aim  of  depreciating  the  distinctive  peculiarities 
of  his  own  denomination,!  affirm  that  it  is  morally  wrong, 
and  no  ingenuity  can  harmonize  it  wdth  an  honest  and  sin- 
cere adoption  of  our  Standards.  It  is  disloyalty  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  Whetlier  in  the  case  of  nunisters  or 
private  members,  to  act  upon  such  a  principle  is  to  break 
covenant,  and  violate  both  ordination  and  sacramental 
vows. 

But  this  claim  to  double-membership,  whether  official  or 
private,  is  ridiculous,  as  well  as  morally  w^rong.  If  a  com- 
municant may  be  a  member  of  two  churches  at  the  same 
time,  the  same  principle  will  allow  him  to  be  a  member  of 
three,  and  of  as  many  more  as  he  pleases,  provided,  always, 
the  new  divine  law  of  organization,  "Receive  ye  one  an- 
other,'" is  understood  by  all  according  to  Mr.  McCune's 
interpretation  !  If  a  minister  may  belong  to  two  different 
organizations  at  the  same  time,  he  may  belong  to  a  dozen. 
If  he  may  join  the  new  organic  union  organization  of 
"  Christian  Union  Churches,"  he  may  become  a  standing 
member  in  the  house  of  Bishops,  one  in  the  Methodist 
Conference  as  well,  one  in  the  Baptist  Association  too,  and 
a  member  of  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  besides. 
There  is  no  limit.  His  blooming  honors  thick  upon  him, 
he  may  run  and  radiate  through  the  whole  circle  of  denomi- 
nations, provided,  always,  they  would  "  receive"  him,  as  he 
would  "  receive"  them.  If  ejected  from  one,  his  standing 
would  be  good  in  all  the  rest.  Besides,  once  in,  they  have 
no  right  to  exclude  him.  He  can  remain  on  their  roll.  It 
is  such  a  privilege  Mr.  McCune  advocates — the  privilege 
that  a  United  States  senator  should  be  a  member  of  the 
British  Parliament,  of  the   Reichsrath  of  King  William, 


[96] 

and  of  the  French  Chambers  at  the  same  time ;  the  privi- 
lege that  the  autocrat  of  all  the  Russias  should  be  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  King  of  Italy,  Sultan  of  Turkey, 
and  Hospodar  of  Bosnia,  all  under  different  oaths,  laws, 
and  governments,  and  yet  advocating  allegiance  and  obe- 
dience to  all  at  the  same  time.  True,  he  has  the  prevision 
that  under  the  operation  of  such  a  rule,  denominations 
would  soon  disappear  ;  but,  meanwhile,  till  that  millennium 
comes,  this  plurality  of  contrary  membership  is  to  be  in- 
dulged, in  hope  that  thus  the  Savior's  prayer  may  soon  be 
answered,  the  world  converted,  and  denominations  be  ready 
to  vanish  away. 

But  the  Presbyterian  Church  will  not  allow  this  duplicity 
of  membership,  self-contradictory  and  suicidal  to  the  church, 
its  individual  members  and  ministers  together.  Ministerial 
and  sacramental  vows,  moral  consistency,  covenant  obliga- 
tions, the  already  quoted  organic  enactments  of  the  church, 
which  I  need  not  repeat,  are  all  against  it.  In  the  case  of 
private  members,  "willful  absence"  from  the  regular  minis- 
trations to  attendance  on  which  they  are  solemnly  pledged, 
the  absenting  themselves  from  and  refusing  to  support  the 
church  to  which  they  belong,  "is  a  disciplinable  offense? 
and  upon  its  occurrence  discipline  is  enjoined."  Digest, 
p.  494.  The  confession  of  a  "change  of  views"  is  no  de- 
fense against  the  sin  of  "  having  violated  covenant  by  con- 
tinued absence  from  the  ordinances  of  the  church."  p.  494. 
Attendance  upon  another  church  is  no  excuse,  for  the  de- 
linquent is  still  a  member.  The  plea  that  he  has  joined 
another  church,  without  dismission,  in  the  region  where 
his  own  exists,  is  not  allowed,  for  it  is  a  disorderly  with- 
drawal and  an  irregular  connection.  "  No  church  member 
can  ever  properly  cease  to  be  such,  except  by  death,  exclu- 
sion, a  regular  dismission,  or  an  orderly  withdrawing  to  join 
some  other  denomination."  p.  625.  "  To  withdraw  from  a 
use  of  his  privileges  as  a  member,  cither  by  irregularly  con- 
necting himself  with  another  denomination,  or  by  going  to  a 
distant  part  of  the  world,  etc.,  without  making  known  his 
removal  to  the  church  session,  and  asking  for  a  certificate 
for  the  purpose  of  enjoying  occasional  communion  else- 
where, or  of  dismission  to  join  some  other  church,  is  itself  a 


[97] 

censurable  violation  of  the  principles  of  church  fellowship, 
and  may  infer  suspension  from  its  privileges."  pp.  625,  626. 
The  law  of  our  church  is  very  clear,  and  its  application  to 
the  principle  and  case  before  us  is  inevitable.  For  church 
members  to  join  another  organization  without  dismission 
from  the  church  to  which  they  belong,  so  absenting  them- 
selves willfully  from  the  organization  and  ministrations 
they  are  under  covenant  obligations  to  support,  is  an  evil 
example,  a  breaking  of  covenant,  a  censurable  violation  of 
the  principles  of  church  fellowship,  an  offense  upon  which 
discipline  is  enjoined,  and  may  infer  suspension  from  the 
church.  These  are  some  of  the  "  denominational  laws" 
and  "organic  enactments"  Mr.  McCune  would  like  to  have 
out  of  the  way.  Double-membership  is  not  allowed.  If 
the  parents  do  this,  what  will  the  children  do?  What  kind 
of  a  church  shall  we  have  the  next  generation  ? 

In  the  case  of  a  public  minister,  the  argument  is  a  for- 
tiori. If  a  private  church  member  may  not  be  guilty  of 
such  license,  much  more  a  Presbyterian  minister  may  not 
encourage  him  in  the  same.  If  the  Standards  of  the  church 
condemn  it,  the  officer  under  vows  to  maintain  the  Stand- 
ards may  not  be  a  party  to  the  propagation  of  doctrines  at 
variance  herewith,  nor  a  party  to  the  censurable  irregular- 
ity. If  a  private-  individual  may  not  assume  a  double- 
membership,  much  more  a  public  officer  under  vows  to 
exercise  discipline  in  such  cases  may  not  himself  be  guilty 
of  advocating  or  doing  the  same.  If  not  in  the  member, 
much  more  not  in  the  minister.  The  Presbyterian  Church 
orders  that  any  of  her  ministers  who  have  joined  another 
ecclesiastical  association  or  another  denomination  are  to  be 
"  stricken  from  the  roll,  if  not  chargeable  with  fundamental 
error  in  doctrine  or  immorality  in  life."  Digest,  pp.  109, 
620.  She  will  not  allow  ministers  of  another  association 
to  belong  to  her  own  at  the  same  time,  nor  her  own  to 
belong  to  another.  Others  who  come  to  her  fold  must 
bring  letters  of  dismission  and  good  standing.  Plurality 
of  official  membership  in  different  denominations  she  will 
not  permit.  The  plea  of  "  non-withdrawal"  from  her  own 
body,  while  uniting  with  another,  she  will  not  tolerate,  and 


[98] 

could  not,  for  it  is  the  very  gravamen  and  core  of  the  trans- 
gression itself.  It  is  a  plea  for  double  and  conflicting  juris- 
diction, double  and  conflicting  allegiance,  under  creeds, 
laws,  vowg,  and  obligations  mutually  contradictory,  and 
destructive  of  her  peace,  unity,  and  purity  as  a  church ; 
and  putting  out  of  sight  altogether  the  question  of  a  pas- 
toral relation  to  a  particular  church  "outside  of  her  juris- 
diction," the  personal  presence  in  Presbytery  and  non-with- 
drawal of  a  minister,  himself  under  two  distinct  allegiances 
— one  Presbyterian,  the  other  Independent — mutual  con- 
tradiction in  polity,  a  regular  officer  in  one  denomination 
standing  and  claiming  the  right  to  be  enrolled  in  another, 
is  no  argument  in  his  vindication.  It  is  the  very  substance 
and  essence  of  the  ofiense  itself,  making  the  violation  of 
obligations  of  loyalty  to  the  distinctive  faith  and  order  of 
his  church  its  own  justification.  He  says  to  the  one  organ- 
ization, "I'm  on  your  side,"  and  to  the  other  organization, 
"I 'm  on  your  side."  He  cannot  be  true  to  both.  Plu- 
rality of  official  relation  here  is  insincerity.  He  can  not 
sincerely  "adopt,"  "approve,"  and  "maintain"  the  dis- 
tinctive faith  and  order  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  with  a 
good  conscience  or  "  singleness  of  heart,"  either  toward 
God  or  man.  Such  double  dealing,  were  it  generally  ac- 
cepted as  a  rule  of  action  by  our  ministers,  would  bring  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  first  to  contempt  and  at  last  to  ruin. 
It  is  the  natural  fruit  and  legitimate  consequence  of  the 
newly  invented  "divine  law  of  organization."  The  or- 
ganic unity  that  gives  birth  to  a  principle  like  this  is  sim- 
ply organic  duplicity.  The  tree  is  bad.  It  is  known  by 
its  fruits.  Men  do  not  gather  grapes  of  thorns  or  figs  of 
thistles. 

I  pass  to  the  sixth  specification.  • 

SPECIFICATION   VI. 

Terms  of  Ministerial  Memhershi'p. 

The  doctrine  charged  in  this  specification  is  that  no 
Presbytery  has  any  right  to  exclude  from  its  official  mem- 
bership any  Christian  minister,  no  matter  to  what  denomi- 


[99] 

nation  he  belongs,  but  that  every  Christian  minister  is,  ipso 
facto,  entitled  to  a  seat  in  any  Presbytery,  to  a  pastorate  in  any 
church,  and  to  any  position  of  oflS.ce  and  trust  the  church 
may  have  to  offer.  This  title  is  said  to  rest  upon  a  "  right " 
to  official  membership.  This  "  right "  is  said  to  rest  upon 
the  simple  fact  that  a  man  is  a  "  Christian  minister."  His 
call  to  the  ministry  is  assumed  as  the  ground  of  the  right, 
and  no  other  test  of  ministerial  qualification  is  allowed, 
save  assent  to  a  "few  leading  truths,"  "expressed  in  God's 
own  language,"  without  any  "human  deductions"  or  "  in- 
ferences" therefrom,  or  any  human  "  modifications."  The 
simple  fact  that  he  assents  to  a  few  unexplained  texts,  as 
his  creed,  is  a  Christian  man,  and  wants  to  be  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  is  enough.  He  must  be  admitted  to  the 
Presbytery.  If  he  is  an  Independent,  denying  our  ascend- 
ing series  of  courts,  and  the  right  of  one  ecclesiastjcal  rule 
over  many  congregations  organically  bound  together,  and 
the  right  of  such  organization  to  be  called  "  a  church,"  he 
is  nevertheless  to  be  admitted.  If  he  is  a  Prelate,  asserting 
apostolical  succession,  three  orders  in  the  ministry,  repu- 
diating the  parity  of  the  clergy,  and  disputing  the  ordi- 
nation of  his  brethren,  he  must  be  admitted.  If  he  is  a 
Lutheran,  proclaiming  consubstafitiation  and  the  ubiquity 
of  Christ's  body,  he  must  be  admitted.  If  he  is  a  Baptist, 
denying  infant  baptism,  infant  church  membership,  and 
asserting  immersion,  he  must  be  admitted.  If  he  is  a 
Quaker,  repudiating  external  sacraments  as  signs  and  seals 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  he  must  be  admitted.  If  he  is  a 
Semi-Pelagian  or  Arminian,  the  one  advocating  a  theology 
that  starts  from  the  principle  of  human  agency  and  only 
introducing  the  Divine  as  a  synergistic  help  to  the  sinner, 
the  other  advocating  a  theology  that  denies  the  absolute 
election  of  men  to  eternal  life,  and  affirming  their  salvation 
only  on  the  condition  of  foreseen  good  works  and  faith, 
both  must  be  admitted.  Apollinarian,  admitting  that 
Christ  had  a  human  bod}'  and  soul,  but  denying  that  he  had 
a  human  spirit;  Nestorian,  sundering  the  natures  of  Christ 
and  teaching  a  double  personality;  Eutychian,  absorbing 
the  human  in  the  Divine  and  compounding  a  new  person- 


[  iOO  ] 

ality — all  must  be  admitted.  The  Calvinistic  Church  has 
no  right  to  distinctively  exist  as  a  separate  denomination. 
The  distinctive  tenets  of  faith  and  order,  achieved  after 
long  conflict,  consecrated  in  the  Westminster  Standards, 
and  bound  upon  the  oflicial  ministry  of  our  church,  are  to 
be  remanded  to  the  category  of  indifierence  because  the 
"  new  divine  law  of  organization  "  is  grounded  in  a  text 
that  relates  to  things  indifferent.  In  other  words,  and  pre- 
cisely, denominations  are  "  essentially  sinful,"  and  should 
be  abolished,  the  Presbyterian  with  the  rest,  the  Court  of 
Christ  turned  into  a  plain  of  Shinar  with  a  new  Babel  as 
its  tower,  no  man  surrendering  anything,  each  one  enjoying 
free  speech,  the  rights  of  conscience  accorded  and  exer- 
cised to  the  last  breath,  a  "  Concordia  Discors"  of  mutual 
"  forbearance  in  love,"  a  "  Camjms  Martins'^  of  conflicting 
beliefs  and  policies,  an  amphitheater  of  belligerent  priest- 
hood, anointed  for  the  combat,  but  not  with  Aaron's  oil, 
"  brethren  "  dwelling  together  in  "  Organic  Unity,"  where  no 
dew  of  Hermon  descends,  and  where  the  Lord  commands  no 
blessing,  but  spiritual  death  forevermore.  Behold!  Is  it 
"good  and  pleasant,"  this  Organic  Church  Union?  It  is 
built  on  a  "  new  divine  law  of  organization,"  which  en- 
titles every  Christian  minister,  ipso  facto,  to  a  seat  in  any 
Presbytery  or  conference  in  Christendom.  It  is  like  the 
under  world,  the  Grave,  as  Blair  describes  it : 

"'T is  here  all  meet: 
The  shivering  Icelander  and  sunburnt  Moor, 
Men  of  all  climes  that  never  met  before, 
A7id  of  all  creeds." 

Its  name  is  "Legion,"  for  it  is  many.  Multitude  is  its 
motto.  Indifference  its  creed.  It  is  the  toleration  of  the 
Grave.  It  is  the  warfare  of  the  shades.  It  is  the  extrava- 
ganza of  supreme  folly. 

Have  the  committee  misrepresented  the  defendant? 
Read  the  proofs.  Read  the  bold  declaration,  dogmatic  and 
authoritative,  squarely  made  in  face  of  the  excluding  law 
of  our  Standards,  that  "any  Christian  minister  has  a  right 
to  membership  "  in  this  or  any  other  Presbytery,  no  matter 
what  his  peculiar  creed;  that  he   is   both  "eligible"  and 


[101] 

"entitled"  to  "every  privilege"  and  "every  position"  im- 
plied in  such  membership,  wlietlier  pastor,  teacher  of  theol- 
ogy or  church  government,  with   free  speech   unchecked, 
and  full  power  to  "  imbue  the  whole  denomination"  with 
his  views,  and  that  any  one  who  dares  to  ask  him  not  to 
advocate   his   antagonisms   to    our    Standards    usurps   the 
"  Throne  of  the  Lord  God  Omnipotent."     Kead  the  double 
mocker^''  of  a  liberalism   that  scorns  to  even  respect  the 
vow  that  binds  to  reverence  and  defense  of  our  organic 
law,  and  sneers  at  our  "  beautiful  consistency "  and  "  de- 
lightful fellowship."     Is  this  loyalty  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church?     Is    there  "some    difterence  of  opinion"    here? 
How  long  would  the  church   survive  were  such  a  course 
generally  allowed?     Is  the  claim  of  a  plenary  indulgence 
to  spread  abroad  unchallenged  for  "  ten  years,"  such  palpa- 
ble contradiction  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  by  sermon, 
paper,  lecture,  and  debate,  while  receiving  thousands  from 
herYunds,  and  subverting  her  order,  an  argument  in  defense 
of  loyalty  to  the  church  and  to  ministerial  vows?     Is  the 
license  of  unrebuked  abuse  against  members  of  this  Pres- 
bytery who  have  sought  by  milder  measures  to  arrest  this 
revolutionary  liberty,  so  long  indulged,  or  the  plea  that  a 
personal  defense  of  our  faith  and  order  against  such  doc- 
trine was  a  persecution  of  the  defendant,  or  that  conscience 
consecrates  the  right  of  a  Presbyterian   officer  to  revolt 
against  his  standard  and  yet  remain  undisciplined,  is  this  a 
demonstration  that  our  terms  of  ministerial  fellowship  are 
sinfully  sectarian  and  should  be  blotted  out?     Moderator 
and  brethren,  your  Committee  are  of  one  mind  that  our 
denomination,  and  our  ministry,  have  been  brought  into 
contempt  by  the  necessity  that  has  demanded  this  judicial 
process. 

The  doctrine  of  ministerial  non-exclusion  from  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  advocated  by  Mr.  McCune,  rests,  as  I  have 
said,  upon  what  he  calls  a  "right"  of  inclusion,  and  that 
so-called  right  rests  upon  the  simple  fact  that  the  applicant 
is  a  Christian  minister.  In  other  words,  an  assumed  call 
to  the  ministry,  ijjso  facto,  entitles  to  membership  in  this 
Presbytery.     Under  the  toleration,  in  our  midst,  of  such  a 


[  102  ] 

sentiment,  and  with  the  old  rule  for  the  examination  of 
ministers  suppressed,  who  may  not  now  knock  at  our  door, 
or  if  knocking  be  refused  admission  ?  Is  this  our  boasted 
Reunion  ?  The  doctrine  of  Mr.  McCune  is  that,  precisely 
as  a  private  Christian  has,  ij^so  facto,  a  right  to  be  in  any 
Presbyterian  Church,  no  matter  what  his  opposition  to 
Presbyterianism  may  be,  and  no  matter  how  calculated,  by 
talent  or  otherwise,  to  make  trouble  in  our  house,  so  any 
Christian  minister  has,  ipso  facto,  a  right  to  be  in  this  Pres- 
bytery, no  matter  how  opposed  to  our  Standards.  The 
plain  English  is,  our  Standards  have  no  right  to  exist.  It 
is  no  misrepresentation  of  the  defendant.  The  doctrine 
has  been  publicly  advocated  for  ten  years,  and  is  well 
known.  The  proofs  are  abundant  and  specific.  Our  polity 
is  sinful — that's  what  it  means.  It  is  a  "Wedge  of  Di- 
vision," an  "  Apple  of  Discord,"  an  "  Achan  in  the  Camp." 
It  will  be  enough  that  your  Committee  refer,  without 
comment,  to  our  law  which  Mr.  McCune  has  so  persistently 
opposed.  The  Presbyterian  Church  condemns  the  doc- 
trines of  Mr.  McCune,  and  affirms  that,  as  a  guardian  of 
the  Truth  of  God,  she  has  a  right  to  exclude  from  her  min- 
isterial communion  any  minister  who  refuses  to  adopt  the 
standards  she  has  declared  to  be  agreeable  to  the  Word  of 
God.  In  most  express  language,  she  declares  her  own  in- 
ability to  depart  from  the  same,  unless  by  "  abandonment" 
of  the  Word  of  God  itself.  Her  convictions  are  unaltera- 
ble. Her  judgment  is  the  latest  and  ripest  conclusion  of 
all  the  contests  in  the  Church  of  Christ  for  eighteen  mem- 
orable centuries.  She  affirms,  in  common  with  every  other 
branch  of  the  Church,  from  which  in  many  things  she  dif- 
fers, that  she  is  "  entitled  to  declare  the  terms  of  admission " 
into  her  own  communion,  and  the  '■'qualifications^'  of  her 
own  ministers,  and  in  such  manner  "that  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints  be  kept  pure  and  uncorrupt  among  us, 
and  so  handed  down  to  our  posterity."  Digest,  pp.  44,  45. 
She  does  it  all  for  the  sake  of  the  "  Heavenly  Doctrine,"  of 
more  value  than  any  organic  union  in  earth  or  Heaven,  and 
under  a  profound  sense  of  her  responsibility  to  Christ,  the 
Head  of  the  Church.     She  does  exclude,  and  this  is  part  of 


[103] 

her  fidelity,  historic  glory,  and  hlessiiig.  She  has  iiiscrihed 
her  terms  of  admission  in  her  standards,  hy  requiring  a 
sincere  adoption,  approval,  and  zealous  maintenance  of 
those  standards,  and  of  her  peace,  unity,  and  purity,  bound 
up  with  such  adoption,  approval,  and  maintenance.  Digest, 
pp.  48  (1),  49  (6),  55  (1,  2,  3).  She  is  not  a  voluntary  asso- 
ciation, nor  a  Christian  Commission,  nor  an  irresponsible 
Council.  She  is  a  Divine  Foundation,  under  law  to  Christ, 
accountable  for  the  light  she  diffuses,  or  the  darkness  she 
spreads  upon  the  world.  She  imposes  solemn  vows  on  all 
her  officers,  ministers,  elders,  and  deacons  to  adhere  to  what 
she  believes  God's  word  to  be.  Digest,  pp.  399,  410,  411. 
She  therefore  excludes  all  ministers  who  can  not  accept  her 
standards,  p.  57  (14).  Churches  that  repudiate  her  polity 
can  not  be  received  or  retained,  pp.  62  (2),  92  (II,  2).  She 
binds  herself  to  the  Calvinistic  system,  p.  85  (4.)  By  her 
Reunion  covenant  she  makes  her  Confession  of  Faith  a  per- 
petual bond,  and  demands  a  positive  approval  of  her  polity, 
p.  91  (2).  She  requires  that  all  her  ministers  shall  teach 
according  to  her  standards,  p.  148.  She  strikes  from  her 
roll  all  those  that  join  other  denominations,  pp.  620  (7), 
169(8.)  She  insists  upon  the  "enforcement"  of  her  stand- 
ards, p.  191  (IV).  She  subjects  to  discipline  all  who  traduce 
them.  p.  54.  She  repudiates  Mr.  McCune's  "human  de- 
duction," drawn  from  the  language  of  God.  Rom.  15:7, 
p.  45.  She  wants  no  new  Confession,  p.  73.  She  will  unite 
with  none,  organically,  except  upon  the  "  Basis  of  the 
Standards."  pp.  45-48.  Is  it  possible  for  her  to  be  more 
explicit  in  her  condemnation  of  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune,  a  doctrine  which  is  a  point-blank  impeachment  of  the 
very  terras  of  fellowship  on  which  he  was  received  into  her 
ministerial  communion  ?  I  place  the  responsibility  where 
it  belongs.  I  submit  that  a  bolder  assault  upon  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  or  a  more  defiant  propagation  of  errors, 
destructive  of  her  existence  as  a  denomination,  a  more  in- 
telligently aimed  stroke  at  her  fundamental  and  vital  doc- 
trine, by  any  of  her  ministers,  never  was  known  in  all  her 
history.  No  other  cases  in  the  Digest  will  compare  with  it. 
The  disastrous  effect  of  this  propagation  for  "  ten  years  " 


[104] 

in  this  region  can  not  be  calculated.  I  appeal  to  living 
proof.  It  has  been  almost  as  much  as  a  minister's  reputa- 
tion is  worth  to  dare  to  stand  up  and  resist  the  spirit  under 
which  this  liberalism  and  lawlessness  enjoyed  their  triumphal 
march.  And  with  their  eyes  full  upon  the  facts,  and  open- 
ing wider  with  astonishment  at  every  step,  your  Committee 
are  of  one  mind,  that  such  a  doctrine  as  the  one  in  this 
single  specification,  and  so  clearly  proved,  and  pregnant 
with  such  measureless  consequences,  is,  of  itself,  amply 
strong  to  sustain  the  weight  of  the  whole  general  charge. 
I  pass  to  the  seventh  specification. 

SPECIFICATION  VII. 

I7}fant  Church  Membership  Denied. 

This  specification  charges  Mr.  McCune  with  the  public 
denial  of  the  doctrine  of  infant  church  membership,  and 
the  aflirmation  of   the  counter-doctrine,  that  the  visible 
Church  on  earth  is  simply  a  company  of  regenerate  believ- 
ers.    He  holds  that  the  doctrine  of  infant  church-member- 
ship is  to  be  repudiated  as  a  High  Church  theory,  the  child 
of  a  sacramentarian  dogma,  w4iich  mediates  the  grace  of 
Christ  through  an  apostolic  succession  and  the  outward 
performance   of   sacramental  rites    and    ceremonies.     The 
"offspring"   of  believers,   or  of  professing  Christians,  are 
thrown  outside  of  God's  covenant  with  the  Church,  and 
upon  which  the  Church  rests.     "A  Christian  Church,"  says 
he,  "  is  a  Church  of  Christians,  an  assembly  of  believers,  a 
company  of   regenerate   souls."      The   inclusion    of   their 
"  children,"   he  tells  us,  "  is   not  a  part  of   the  common 
faith."     His  principle  of  Organic  Union,  built  upon  his  in- 
terpretation of  Rom.  15  :  7,  "  excludes  all  baptized  children 
from    church-membership  who   can    not  give  satisfactory 
scriptural  evidence  that  they  are  Christians ;"  i.  e.,  it  ex- 
cludes all  infants.     His  language  is  as  unmistakable  here  as 
elsewhere.     He  says  :  '•^  I  utterly  repudiate  the  doctrine  oj  in- 
fant church  memhership."     "  Unbelieving,  unconverted  chil- 
dren" are  not  members  of  the  visible  Church,  even  though 
their  parents  are  in  church  covenant  with  God.     It  is  "  a 


[  105  ] 

High  Church  theory."  lie  would  baptize  an  infant,  but  not 
recognize  that  Baptism  as  a  covenant  sign  and  seal  of  grace, 
nor  the  infant  as  having  any  Church  right  to  Baptism. 
Baptism,  as  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  is  only 
to  be  administered  to  regenerate  souls,  and  this  not  upon  a 
credible  profession  of  their  faith,  but  upon  a  credible  "  evi- 
dence" of  faith  ;  i.  e.,  evidence  regarded  as  "satisfactory" 
to  human  judgment  that  a  person  is  truly  regenerate.  To 
crown  all,  and  strengthen  his  assertions,  he  assumes  to 
speak  authoritatively,  and  declare  to  the  world  that  "  the 
Presbyterian  Church  has  ceased  to  enforce  Infant  BajHism." 
These  views  of  Mr.  McCune  betray,  in  an  unmistakable 
manner,  his  true  position,  both  as  to  doctrine  and  order. 
They  rest  u[)on  a  mutilation  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
an  identification  of  the  "visible  Church"  with  the  "  Body 
of  Christ,"  an  actual  expulsion  of  the  offspring  of  believers 
from  their  rights,  the  substitution  in  the  case  of  adults  of 
"credible  evidence  of  faith"  for  a  "credible  p7-ofession  of 
faith,"  and  the  theory  that  the  terms  of  visible  church-mem- 
bership are  identical  with  the  terms  of  salvation,  or  mem- 
bership in  the  "Body  of  Christ." 

Before  passing  to  the  law  of  our  Standards,  I  desire  to 
quote  the  singularly  appropriate  words  of  Dr.  Bannerman, 
to  whose  admirable  work  I  have  already  referred.  Having 
established  the  clear  distinction  between  the  visible  and  in- 
visible Church,  or  the  "visible  Church  "  and  the  "  Body  of 
Christ,"  he  says :  "The  principles  in  regard  to  the  visible 
and  invisible  Church,  already  indicated,  have  a  very  impor- 
tant bearing  on  the  question  of  the  lawfulness  or  unlawful- 
ness of  Infant  Baptism."  "The  doctrine  of  the  visible 
Church  and  its  external  relationship  to  Christ  lays  the  foun- 
dation for  those  view^s  of  church-membership  which  justify 
us  in  regarding  the  infants  of  professing  Christians  to  share 
in  the  communion  and  privileges  of  the  Church,"  "  The 
Independent  view,  which  insists  on  the  possession  of  a  sav- 
ing faith  in  Christ  as  the  only  footing  on  which  church- 
membership  can  be  conceded,  and  the  only  title  to  the  en- 
joyment of  church  ordinances,  tends  very  directly,  if 
consistently  carried  out,  to  deprive  the  infants  of  professing 


[  106  ] 

Christians  of  their  right  to  be  regarded  as  members  of  the 
Church,  or  to  claim  the  benefits  of  its  ordinances."  Again, 
speaking  of  the  Presbyterian  terms  of  Communion,  "a 
credible  profession  of  faith,"  and  a  "  corresponding  life  and 
conduct,"  he  says  :  "The  Independents  demand  something 
more  than  this.  Positive  evidence  of  a  credible  kind  that 
a  man  is  a  true  believer,  and  savingly  united  to  Christ,  is 
alone  held  to  be  sufficient  warrant  to  admit  him  to  a  Chris- 
tian Society,  the  work  of  grace  effected  in  his  saul  being 
accounted  the  only  ground  and  condition  of  church-member- 
shijJ.  The  difference  between  the  principles  of  Presbyte- 
rians and  Independents  is  broad  and  fundamental.  With 
Independents,  a  saving  belief  in  Christ  is  the  only  title  of 
admission  to  the  Christian  Society.  With  Presbyterians, 
on  the  other  hand,  an  intelligent  profession  of  belief  in  the 
gospel  is  the  title  to  admission  to  church-membership.  The 
Independent  system  of  church-membership  is  founded  on  a 
denial  of  the  distinction  between  the  visible  and  invisible 
Church  of  Christ."  Church  of  Christ,  Vol.  I,  pp.  36,  73. 
I  think  these  quotations  from  so  standard  an  authority, 
taken  in  connection  with  Mr.  McCune's  words,  leave  no 
room  for  doubt  that  Mr.  McCune  is  not  a  Presbyterian,  but 
an  Independent,  under  a  Presbyterian  name,  and  can  not, 
and  does  not,  either  adopt  the  system  of  doctrine  in  our 
Confession,  or  the  system  of  polity  in  our  Discipline. 
Brownism  is  not  more  radical. 

Mr.  McCune  can  not  plead  ignorance  of  our  standards, 
however  much  he  may  plead  "indifference,"  for  he  has 
studied  them  on  this  point,  only  to  deny  their  doctrine, 
publicly,  before  the  Evangelical  Ministerial  Association  of 
Cincinnati,  and  spread  the  denial  broadcast  through  the 
Commercial  of  May  9,  1876,  even  after  the  Presbytery  had 
appointed  its  Investigating  Committee,  April  13,  1876,  at 
Glendale.  See  Proof  and  Spec.  XI.,  Proof  2.  lie  quotes 
the  standards  only  to  assail  them  before  others,  and  affirm 
that  on  this  question  they  are  no  part  of  the  common  faith. 
Our  law  asserts  that  the  "universal  church  consists  of  all 
those  persons,  in  every  nation,  together  with  their  children, 
who   make  profession  of  the  hoi}'  religion  of  Christ,  and  of 


[107] 

submission   to    his   laws."     Digest,  p.  107.     "  A  particular 
church  "  it  defines  to  "  consist  of  a  number  of  professing 
Christians,  ivith   their  offspring,   voluntarily    associated  to- 
gether   for  divine  worship  and  godly  living,  agreeably  to 
the  Holy   Scriptures,  and   submitting  to  a  certain  form   of 
government."  p.  107.     "Children  born  within  the  pale  of  the 
visible  church,  and  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism,  are  under 
the   inspection    and   government  of  the    Church."  p.   108 
(2,  6).     "  ISTot  only  those  who  do  actually  profess  faith  in, 
and  obedience  unto  Christ,  but  also  the  infants  of  one  or  both 
believing  pare7its  are  to  be  baptized."  p.  108  (2,  d).     "  All  bap- 
tized persons  are  members  of  the  church,  are  under  its  care, 
subject  to  its  government  and   discipline,  and  when  they 
have   arrived  at  the  years  of  discretion,  they  are  bound  to 
perform   all   the   duties  of  church  members."     p.  497.     The 
same  doctrine  is  declared,  p.  671,  and  the  confirmation  of  it, 
p.  705.     The   same  again  in  Conf.  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXY, 
Sec.  II,  and  XXVIIl"^  Sec.  IV.     Larger  Cat.  p.  62.     Our 
Church  forbids  Mr.  McCune  to  administer  baptism  "  to  any 
that  are  outside  of  the  visible  church,"  and  therefore  to  infants, 
if  he  regards  them  as  not  members,  for  '■'■all  bap)tized persons 
are  members  of  the  Church."     Larger  Cat.   Q.  166.    Digest, 
p.  497.     Shorter  Cat.  Q.  95.     The  visible    church  she  de- 
clares not  to  be  exclusively  an  assembly  of  believers  and 
company  of  regenerate  souls,  but  an  assembly  of  baptized 
professors  of  the  true  religion  with  their  unregenerate  offspring. 
"The  purest  churches  under  iieaven,"  she   declares,  "are 
subject  to  both  mixture  and  error,  and  some  have  so  degen- 
erated as  to  become  no  churches  of  Christ,  but  synagogues 
of  Satan."    Conf.   of  Faith,  Chap.  XXV,  Sec.  V.     "Igno- 
rant, wicked,  and  ungodly  men,"  she  says,  "  do  receive  the 
outward   elements  in  the  sacrament,"  "  are  unfit  to  enjoy 
communion  with  Christ,"  "unworthy  of  the  Lord's  table," 
and  are  "  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  to  their 
own  damnation."     Conf.  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXIX,  Sec.  VIII. 
Such  is  our  definition  of  the  i^ew  Testament  Church,  cor- 
responding with  our  Saviour's  illustrations  in  His  parables 
of  the  tares  and  the  wheat,  the  sheep  and  the  goats,  the 
good   fish  and  the  bad,  the   wise  and  the  foolish  virgins. 


[108] 

Both  classes  are  included  and  sit  under  the  means  of  grace, 
profess  Christ,  partake  of  the  Lord's  table,  and  meet  to- 
gether at  the  judgment  seat,  to  be  forever  separated — some 
on  the  right  hand,  welcomed  to  life  eternal,  the  rest,  on  the 
left,  going  away  into  everlasting  punishment.  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune  would  be  wiser  than  the  Master.  He  says  the  New 
Testament  Church  is  an  "  assembly  of  belieoers,  a  company 
oi  regenerate  souls."  His  organic  union  church  desires  to 
be  an  improvement,  in  this  dispensation,  on  the  Master's 
plan.  Peter's  sheet,  let  down  from  heaven,  had  in  it  "all 
manner  of  four-footed  beasts  and  creeping  things."  Mr. 
McCune's  would  contain  only  regenerate  doves.  Peter's 
net  at  Pentecost  inclosed  Ananias  and  Sapphira;  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune's at  Mount  Lookout  would  gather  only  such  as  Ste- 
phen, Paul,  and  Cornelius. 

I  dwell  upon  this  specification,  because  of  the  fearful  lat- 
itudinarianism  of  our  times,  with  a  host  of  lay  preachers, 
who  never  refer  to  the  covenant  of  God  as  the  foundation 
of  the  visible  Church,  who  regard  the  individual  as  its  ulti- 
mate unit,  and  not  the  family,  and  who  judge  the  title  to 
membership  in  the  church  to  be  exclusively  experiences 
and  evidejice,  to  fallible  judgment,  of  regeneracy,  and  with 
whom,  nevertheless,  the  doctrine  of  repentance  has  a  small 
place  in  their  preaching,  while  the  mistake  of  emotional 
excitement  for  a  work  of  grace  has  a  wide  berth — all  this, 
with  the  increasing  neglect  of  infant  church-membership, 
baptism,  and  family  training  for  God — threatens  to  sweep 
us  away  from  our  moorings.  Organic  union  principles 
work  in  the  same  direction. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  "  offspring  of  believers,"  are  not 
members  of  the  visible  church,  and  to  be  treated  as  such. 
They  are  born  within  the  pale  of  the  church.  Tiiey  were 
never  outside  of  it.  The  first  breath  they  draw,  and  the 
first  light  they  see  are  covenant  breath  and  light.  The 
arms  that  press  them  first  to  a  mother's  breast,  and  the 
tears  that  fall  upon  them,  and  the  soft  kiss  that  blesses 
their  infant  cheek,  are  arms  and  tears  and  kiss  of  covenant 
love.  Their  birthright  in  the  church  is  the  result  of  a 
promise  of  grace  made  to  Abraham  and   his  seed.     Their 


[109] 

first  home  on  earth  is  in  the  church  of  God.  Thej^  helong 
to  it  as  truly  as  did  Isaac  in  Sarah's  arms,  or  Jacob  in  Re- 
becca-'s.  The  church  covenant  is  a  household  covenant. 
"  1  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee.""  The  Y)ronnise 
is  made  to  the  children  as  well  as  to  the  parents.  "  It  is  to 
you  and  to  your  children."  God  never  made  a  covenant  that 
did  not  include  tlie  children,  all  of  whom  had  a  rio^ht  to  its 
sign  and  seal.  The  covenant  with  Adam  involved  his  pos- 
terity. Tlie  race-covenant  with  Noah  involved  the  human 
family,  and  its  radiant  seal  still  spans  the  heaven  in  every 
storm.  The  Sinai  covenant  took  in  the  children.  The 
church  covenant  with  Abraham  does  the  same.  The  unity 
of  Old  and  N^ew  Dispensations  is  so  vital  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  and  was  so  well  understood,  that  special  pre- 
cepts under  the  ISTew,  for  requiring  the  signs  and  seals  of 
the  covenant  to  be  given  to  all  included  in  it,  were  not  re- 
quired. The  covenant  with  Abraham  was  confirmed  in 
Isaac,  in  Jacob,  and  in  Christ,  at  last,  the  Promised  Seed,  in 
whom  all  believers  and  their  offspring  were  represented. 
"For  if  ye  be  Christ's  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise."  It  is  under  the  general  provi- 
sions of  grace  made  to  Abraham,  who  is  "  the  father  of  all 
them  that  believe,"  that  believing  parents  now  present  their 
children  to  God  in.  Baptism  upon  the  sacrifice  and  service 
of  their  faith,  taking  hold  of  God's  covenant  in  behalf  of 
their  seed,  and  pleading  with  Him  for  the  gracious  fulfill- 
ment of  its  promises,  all  which  are  "  Yea  and  Amen  in 
Christ  Jesus."  It  is  because  the  children  are  included  in 
that  household  covenant  on  which  the  Church  of  God  rests, 
they  are  to  be  baptized.  Mr.  McCune  says,  the  doctrine  of 
infant  church-membership  is  "  no  part  of  the  common 
faith."  Astounding  declaration,  if  he  knows  what  the 
"  c(mimon  faith  "  means!  In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
in  the  Greek  Communion,  in  all  the  authoritative  creeds  of 
the  Protestant  Reformation,  Lutheran  and  Reformed,  ortho- 
dox Puritan  and  Presbyterian,  as  in  the  Apostolic  Church, 
there  is  no  other  doctrine.  "  Foederati  sunt  baptizandi"  is 
the  consecrated  motto,  "  the  federate  or  covenanted  are  to 
be  baptized,"  and  only  such.     Has  Mr.    McCune  yet  to 


[110] 

learn,  in  express  language,  Paul  assures  us  that  baptism 
takes  the  place  of  circumcision,  which  signified  regenera- 
tion, or  the  putting  away  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  the  new 
uncarnal  birth,  eftected  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  whose  work  is 
symbolized  by  water  ?  Col.  ii :  11,  12  ;  Rom.  vi :  3,  4.  Is 
he  a  Master  in  Israel,  and  has  he  yet  to  learn  that,  in  God's 
constitution  and  economy,  all  church-membership  rests 
upon  the  prior  fact  and  condition  of  covenant  relationship, 
that  in  the  case  of  infants  it  is  this  stipulated  inclusion  of 
them  in  the  church  covenant,  which  is  a  household  cove- 
nant, that  guarantees  the  right  of  membership  and  right  of 
Baptism,  its  sign  and  seal ;  and  that  in  the  case  of  adults, 
outside  of  the  covenant,  their  interest  herein  is  to  be  at- 
tained, as  Abraham's  was,  by  faith  ?  Has  ye  yet  to  learn 
that  it  was  because  all  this  was  so  well  understood  in  early 
times,  Lydia  and  her  house,  and  the  jailor  and  his  house, 
and  the  household  of  Stephanus  were  baptized,  the  believing 
parents  upon  their  ow^n  faith,  the  children  on  the  faith  of 
the  parents  in  a  covenant  confirmed  to  them  and  to  their 
seed  after  them?  Or  were  they  the  adult  domestics  and 
workhands  called  in  from  the  field,  or  Roman  slaves,  who 
imagined  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  be  baptized  too,  be- 
cause their  masters  and  mistresses. commanded  it?  Is  Mr. 
McCune  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  in  the  New  Testament 
there  is  more  historic  proof  of  household  baptism,  than 
there  is  of  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  Mod- 
erator, the  reason  Mr.  McCune  assails  infant  church-mem- 
bership is  because  he  either  assumes  that  the  grace  of  God 
does  not  reach  the  infant's  heart,  in  infant  measure,  and 
abide  there  as  a  living  seed,  or  if  it  did,  3'et  membership 
shall  be  denied  because  of  infant  incapacity  to  speak.  Sir, 
the  presumption  is  that  grace  does  come  to  the  children  of 
believing  parents,  until  that  presumption  is  destroyed  by 
evidence  of  scandal  in  their  lives,  and  positive  refusal  to 
believe  in  Christ.  Our  Presbyterian  law  is  built  on  this, 
when  it  requires  all  the  baptized  children  of  believing  pa- 
rents, when  they  have  reached  the  years  of  understanding, 
to  come  to  the  Lord's  table.  The  reproach  Mr,  McCune 
suggests,  of  admitting  to  external  membership  "  a  multi- 


[Ill] 

tude  of  unbelieving,  unconverted  children,"  is  a  reproach 
against  God's  covenant,  for  they  are  born  "  unholy  and 
unclean"  y&t  federally  "  clean."  "  Else  were  your  children 
unclean,  but  now  they  are  holy."  The  efficacy  of  divine 
grace  is  not  tied  to  sacramental  administration  in  the  Pres- 
byterian doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  it  is  a  false  charge 
to  say  that  our  doctrine  involves  it.  The  sacramental 
union  that  exists  between  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified, 
is  not  a  realistic  but  symbolical  ordained  relation,  whereby 
the  sign  both  represents  and  seals  the  grace  proposed,  upon 
declared  conditions,  on  the  parent's  part,  without  a  limita- 
tion as  to  time  or  ceremony.  The  Lord's  Supper  does  not 
cleanse  from  guilt,  but  only  Christ.  Baptism  does  not 
purify,  or  create  anew,  but  only  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  first 
may  be  administered  only  to  believing  adults  because  a 
Public  Object  is  proposed  therein  to  faith,  Christ  crucified, 
whom  the  believer  must  know.  The  second  may  be  ad- 
ministered to  unconscious  infants,  because  it  represents  a 
Spiritual  Agent's  power  behind  the  human  consciousness, 
unseen  and  secret  in  his  work. 

I  would  gladly  dwell  longer  on  this,  but  other  subjects 
demand  co»sideration.  I  affirm  that  for  a  Presbyterian 
minister  to  say,  or  any  one  to  say,  "  I  utterly  repud'iaie  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  church-rnembership,"  is  to  deny  God's  covenant 
in  Christ  with  all  believers,  and  for  believers  and  their  seed  ; 
to  deny  the  very  foundation  of  the  Christian  Church  itself, 
and  the  ground  of  all  church-membership,  and  prostitute  the 
sacred  ordinance  of  Baptism  to  a  mere  profane  festhetic  art 
of  fixing  to  a  child  a  name.  And  yet  "  ten  years  "  of  this  we 
have  had,  blown  in  every  direction  with  a  flourish  of  trum- 
pets in  the  interest  of  Organic  Union  !  Is  it  the  doctrine 
of  our  standards?  Is  it  loyalty  to  our  system  of  doctrine? 
It  is  disloyalty  to  the  sacred  truth  of  Christ  and  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  a  public  violation  of  most  solemn 
ordination  vows.  Grant  this  license  for  "ten  years"  to  all 
our  ministers.  Allow  the  liberalism  of  the  limes  to  rush  in 
like  a  flood.  Proscribe  the  men  who  dare  to-  lift  their 
voices  against  the  palliation  of  ruinous  encroachments,  and 
what  then?     Shall  we  wonder  why  a  covenant  God  who 


[112] 

has  said  "  I  will  pour  water  on  him  that  is  thirsty,  and 
floods  on  the  dry  ground;  I  will  pour  my  Sfiirit  on  thy 
seed,  and  my  blessing  on  thine  offspring,"  has  left  our  fleece 
dry,  and  seemed  to  us  as  though  His  promise  failed  forever- 
more?  Vows  have  lost  their  sanctity,  and  the  phantom  of 
organic  union,  caressed  too  long,  like  some  Delilah,  has 
grieved  away  the  Spirit  of  all  grace.  We  have  risen  up  to 
shake  ourselves  as  at  other  times,  and  "wist  not  that  the 
Lord  was  departed  from  us !"  I  pass  to  the  eighth  specifi- 
cation. 

SPECIFICATION    VIII. 

Admission  of  Unbaptised  Persons. 

This  specification  brings  to  notice  a  doctrine  of  Mr. 
McCiine,  worthy  to  stand  beside  his  mutilation  of  God's 
covenant  with  believers  in  behalf  of  their  ofispring.  I  show^ 
you  the  abstraction  of  membershiD  from  a  helpless  infant, 
the  dowry  God  has  given  it,  and  charging  it  unjustly  to 
the  credit  of  a  man  whom  Christ  forbids  to  take  it.  I  show 
you  the  tearing  of  the  seal  from  the  official  deed  conveying 
to  the  child  its  own  inheritance, and  giving  it  the  seal  with- 
out the  parchment,  and  then  the  giving  of  the  parchment 
to  the  adult  without  the  seal.  Such  is  the  administration 
and  stewardship  of  the  mysteries  by  organic  union,  and 
such  is  the  account  kept  in  its  bank.  Is  it  the  part  of  a 
faithful  and  wise  steward  whom  his  Lord  makes  ruler  over 
His  household  to  give  them  their  portion  in  due  season? 
Mr.  McCune  refuses  to  children  of  believers  their  covenant 
title  to  church-menibership,  and  yet  baptizes  them,  aflixing 
the  sign  and  seal  of  their  abstracted  right.  Mr.  McCune 
gives  to  adults  the  official  deed  itself,  and  covenant  inher- 
itance, conveyed  to  them  without  the  sign  and  seal  of  its 
possession.  The  testamental  seal  he  gives  to  one  from  whom 
he  takes  away  the  testament  itself.  The  testament  he 
passes  to  the  other  whom  he  lets  reject  the  testament  seal. 
Christ  has  made  baptism  an  essential  condition  of  external 
church-membership,  though  not  an  essential  condition  of 
membership  in  the  "  one  Body  "  of  Christ.  Mr.  McCune 
will  not  have  it  so.     Jerusalem  below  must  shine  in  the 


[113] 

prerogatives  of  Jerusalem  above.  The  outer  palace  wall 
shall  be  coufounded  with  the  Bride  herself  who  sits  within 
the  secret  chamber.  Israel,  external,  shall  have  the  privi- 
leges of  Israel,  within.  The  Church  invisible  and  visible 
shall  be  melted  into  one.  Mr.  McCune  declares  that  the 
jpossession  of  saving  faith,  the  door  of  entrance  to  the  church 
invisible,  shall  be  the  door  of  entrance  to  the  church  visi- 
ble, and  that  Christian  Baptism,  on  the  profession  of  that 
faith,  shall  not.  He  will  admit  unbaptized  possessors  of  that 
faith  to  church  membership.  Such  is  Mr.  McCune's  Organic 
Union — a  bid  for  Quaker  suffrage  to  his  scheme,  just  as  the 
denial  of  infant  church  membership  is  a  bid  to  Baptists  for 
their  suffrage  too;  just  as  the  denial  of  organic  rule  over  a 
plurality  of  congregations  is  a  bid  to  Independents  for  their 
vote  ;  while  the  administration  of  the  rite  of  baptism  to 
infants  is  a  sop  to  Presbyterians,  the  Prelatic  posture  of  a 
minister  without  an  Eldership  a  crumb  to  all  Episcopalians, 
and  creeds,  condemned  to  dungeons  and  to  chains,  a  sound 
of  liberty  to  all  Disciples  !  Moderator,  what  kind  of  a  thing 
is  baptism  upon  Mr.  McCune's  theory?  Our  book  tells  us 
that  it  is  a  covenant  ordinance,  a  sign  and  seal  of  covenant 
blessing.  With  Mr.  McCune  it  is  neither.  Having  de- 
stroj^ed  the  covenant  relation,  baptism  becomes  nothing 
more  than  if  one. man  should  throw  water  into  the  face  of 
another,  and  profanely  pronounce  upon  him  the  name  of 
the  Trinity.  "With  us  baptism  is  an  "  ordinance,'"  with  him 
it  is  a  handful  of  water.  And  must  we  spend  our  time  here, 
in  judicial  process  and  trouble  for  a  year,  before  such  non- 
sense and  such  disloyalty  to  our  confession  and  our  vows 
can  be  arrested,  and  our  Church's  peace  secured  ? 

Mr.  McCune  is  bold  to  tell  us  what  he  would  do,  and 
what  he  has  done  in  this  respect.  He  would,  he  says, 
"receive  any  one"  whom  he  judges  to  be  regenerate, 
"although"  such  one  has  the  views  of  the  "  Friends  "  con- 
cerning water  baptism.  Let  the  Presbytery  observe,  not 
only  every  member  of  the  societies  commonly  called 
Quakers,  who  he  judges  "  make  a  credible  profession,"  and 
therefore,  as  he  concludes,  are  regenerate,  but  "any  one" 
though    not   among   "  Friends,"  yet   having   their   "  same 


[  114  ] 

views,"  as  to  water  baptism,  he  will  receive.  In  other 
words,  all  credible  professors  who,"  ipso  facto,  are  decided  to 
be  credible  possessors  of  saving  faith,  and  yet  "  ivho  at  the 
same  time  deny  the  perpetual  obligation  of  water  bap)tism,"  he 
would  "receive."  He  breaks  down  the  door  of  entrance 
into  the  visible  church,  already  made  by  Christ,  and  makes 
another  for  himself.  And  then  he  pretends,  while  pleading 
his  broad  principle,  that  it  is  only  an  "  exceptional  case." 
Christ's  command  is  absolute.  Our  Standards  bind  it  on 
the  conscience  of  Mr.  McCane.  If  one  may  enter  unbap- 
tized,  ten  thousand  may.  No  "  exceptional  case"  is  allow- 
ed by  Christ.  None  by  our  Standards.  When  writing  his 
book  on  Organic  Union,  and  trying  to  establish  the  pro- 
position that  none  may  be  excommunicated,  except  upon 
the  previous  judgment  that  they  are  unregenerate,  he 
lays  down  the  doctrine  that  if  a  man  refuses  to  obey  the 
words  of  Christ,  he  is  not  a  Christian.  He  asks,  "  Can  a 
man  refuse  to  obey  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and 
still  be  a  Christian  ?"  The  judgment  of  charity  would  lead 
us  to  say,  *'  Yes,"  for  Mr.  McCune's  sake,  when  we  re- 
m.ember  that  he  is  under  orders  from  Christ  himself  to 
baptize  all  nations.  He  asks  again,  "  Can  a  man  refuse  to 
obey  the  inspired  apostles  and  be  a  Christian  ?  "  The  same 
judgment  of  charity  inclines  us  to  answer  "  Yes,"  for 
the  sake  of  Mr.  McCune's  "Friends,"  for  the  Apostles 
"commanded"  believers  to  "be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord."  Acts  10  :  48.  Organic  Union,  pp.  77,  78.  Many  a 
"proud"  and  many  an  "ignorant"  man  is  a  Christian,  and 
can  say  and  do  many  bad  things.  Mr.  McCune,  defending 
his  new  "  divine  law  "  as  to  excommunication,  not  only  re- 
fuses to  admit  to  membership,  but  excludes  from  member- 
ship, as  unregenerate,  the  man  who  refuses  to  obey  a 
known  "command"  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  But 
when  expounding  his  new  "  divine  law  "  again,  he  assures 
us,  ^^2in hesitatingly,"  that  he  will  judge  to  be  regenerate, 
and  receive  to  membership  "  every  "  man,  "  any  "  man, 
anywhere,  who  refuses  to  obey  what  Mr.  McCune  himself 
acknowledges  to  be  a  perpetual  command  of  Christ  and 
His  Apostles,  and  be  baptized.     On  his  own  confession, 


[115] 

therefore,  his  net  takes  in  a  whole  swarm  of  un regenerate 
souls,  believing  unbelievers,  who  not  only  repudiate 
Baptism,  but  both  the  sacraments  together,  and  makes 
mere  membership  "  all  the  fellowship  they  will  accept." 
How  then,  on  his  own  showing,  is  the  Christian  Church  a 
"company  of  regenerate  souls?"  By  his  own  definition 
every  unbaptized  man  is  unregeuerate,  because  he  disobeys 
a  divine  command  in  refusing  to  be  baptized.  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune's  "Friends  "have  no  occasion  to  thank  him  for  his 
argument.  He  makes  them  uncoverted.  Tbe  '■'■Quaker 
gun"  may  be  heard  resounding,  "Friend,  if  what  thee 
eayest  is  true,  we  don't  need  thee ;  if  what  thee  sayest  is 
false,  we  don't  want  thee  !"  And  the  Baptist  gun  may  yet 
explode  a  flood  that  will  immerse  a  creed  that  can't  hold 
water  even  for  sprinkling,  and  leave  not  one  of  all  the  new 
communion  unbaptized.  It  avails  nothing  for  Mr.  McCune 
to  say,  many  interpret  the  command  spiritually.  "No  hu- 
man deductions!"  We  want  the  command  ^^  expressed  in 
God^s  own  language."  "  The  Bible  is  the  only  true  creed  for  all 
true  Christians,  and  all  ministers,  and  all  churches"  '■^ Every 
thing  human  in  creeds  I  oiipose"  With  what  consistency 
can  Mr.  McCune  ejaculate  such  sentiments,  and  then  pro- 
pose liis  own  "  deduction  "  in  face  of  an  express  command 
of  Christ  and  His  apostles? — a  deduction  denying  the  per- 
petual and  necessary  obligation  of  water-baptism,  as  a  door 
of  entrance  to  the  visible  Church  ? — and  then,  like  Sir 
Oracle,  thunder  in  our  ears,  "We  maintain  that  faith  in 
Christ  is  not  merely  the  great  condition,  but  the  only  con- 
dition." "  When  we  say  that  faith  in.  Christ  is  the  orie 
essential  condition  of  entrance,  we  mean  that  it  is  the  only 
condition."  And  so  the  Organic  Union  "creed — no  creed," 
woven  like  Joseph's  coat  of  many  colors,  goes  on,  and  tlie 
piebald  anti-pro-denomination  pleads  an  "Apostolic  pedi- 
gree !  Pray,  moderator,  what  Apostle  was  it  who  fathered 
such  a  creed?  I  am  sure  it  was  not  Peter  who  said, 
"  Repent  and  be  baptized."  I  am  sure  it  was  not  Paul  who 
tells  us,  "  We  are  buried  with  Christ,  by  Baptism,  into  His 
Death  !"  "If  I  seek  to  please  men,  then  I  am  not  the  servant 
of  Christ."     Christ's  command  is  supreme  though  a  thou- 


[  116  ] 

sand  Presbyteries  or  Synods  are  willing  parties  to  its  trans- 
gression. Broad  and  bold  is  the  utterance  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  that  her  whole  power  in  Christ's  Kingdom 
is  simply  "declarative  and  niinisterial,"  and  she  dare  no 
more  dispense  with  Christ's  command  tliau  Gabriel  dare 
dispute  an  order  from  the  Throne.  By  what  authority  does 
Mr.  McCune  leave  it  for  the  applicant  to  decide  what  the 
commands  of  Christ  are,  what  His  sacraments  are,  and  how 
these  are  to  be  observed?  Such  an  argument  is  a  destruc- 
tion of  the  authority  of  the  Church  as  a  teacher  and  wit- 
ness of  the  Truth,  and  abdication  of  the  functions  of  the 
ministry.  If  one  applicant  may  decide  according  to  his 
notion,  another  may  decide  a  different  way,  and  every  com- 
mand of  Christ  be  trampled  under  foot.  The  Standards, 
moderator,  which  Mr.  McCune  has  vowed  that  he  sincerely 
adopts,  approves,  and  will  maintain,  declare  and  teach  in 
the  most  express  language  the  perpetual  and  necessary 
obligation  of  water-baptism.  The  ordinance  is  "to  be  con- 
tinued in  the  Church  till  the  end  of  the  world."  Conf.  of 
Faith,  chap,  xxviii,  sec.  1;  "continued  in  the  Church  of 
Christ  until  His  second  coming."  Larger  Cat.  Q.  176. 
"To  neglect  or  contemn  this  ordinance  is  a  (jreat  sin." 
Conf.  of  Faith,  chap,  xxviii,  sec.  v.  It  is  to  despise  Christ's 
command.  "  Can  the  Church  answer  to  her  great  Ilead,  if 
this  neglect  of  duty  be  not  mourned  over  and  corrected?" 
Digest,  p.  673.  This  ordinance  is,  for  uncovenanted  adults, 
the  door  of  entrance  into  the  visible  Church,  the  gate  "  where- 
by the  parties  baptized  are  solemnly  admitted  into  the  visible 
Church."  Larger  Cat.  Q.  165.  Here  "JJo  Ammi"  and  ^^Lo 
Ruhamah  "  enter — Hosea  i :  9, 10.  It  is  part  and  parcel  of  a 
credible  profession  of  faith  in  Christ.  "  When  unbaptized  per- 
sons apply  for  admission  into  the  Church,"  after  satisfactory 
examination,  and,  in  ordinary  cases,  making  a  public  profes- 
sion, "  they  shall,  thereupon^  be  baptized."  Digest,  p.  677, 
(iv).  "  In  the  practice  of  our  Church,  and  according  to  her 
Standards,  baptism  is  manifestly  regarded  as  a  part  of  the 
general  profession  of  faith  and  obedience  to  Christ."  Digest, 
p.  678.  By  no  vote  of  any  session,  nor  of  any  committee- 
men, nor  of  any  court  on  earth  can  an  unbaptized  person  be 


[  117  ] 

allowed  membership  in  the  Church.     Mr.  McCune  is  taught, 
by  our  Standards,  "that  the  administration  of  baptism,  ac- 
cording to  the  "Word  of  God,  must  be  involved  in  and  at- 
tendant upon"   any  vote  of  reception,     p.   129  (4),     Ex- 
pressly is  it  stated,  "  The  vote  of  a  session  does  not  entitle 
any  unbaptized  person  to  the  privileges  of  the  Church,  for 
the  reason  that  baptism,  as  our  Confession  of  Faith  declares, 
(Chap,  xxviii,  sec.  1),  is  declared  to  be  a  sacrament  /or  the 
solemn  admission  ofthepartij  baptized  into  the  visible  Church:' 
p.  130.     "The  imblic profession  of  one's  faith  may  be  omit- 
ted," but  baptism  may  not  be  omitted,  for  the  "exceptional 
case"  as  it  is  called,  has  no  respect  whatever  to  the  omis- 
sion of  baptism,  but  only  to  the  omission  of  a  imblic  profes- 
sion, when,  for  good  reasons,  it  can  not  be  made.     So  our 
Standards  :  "  The  public  profession  of  one's  faith  may,  for 
sufficient  reasons,  as  our  Directory  of  Worship  allows,  be 
omitted ;  but  the  exceptional  case  does  not  respect  baptism., 
which  precedes  the  admission  of  the  party  to  the  Lord's 
table."     p.  130.     The  vote  of  the  session  or  of  any  court 
admitting  persons  to  church-membership,  "  must  be  condi- 
ditioned  upon  baptism,  and  can,  in  no  case,  be  a  substitute 
for  the  sacrament  itself  (baptism),     p.  130.     Twenty  years 
ago,  lorjg  before  Mr."  McCune  came  into  the  Presbyterian 
Church  where  he  now  is,  the  General  Assembly  settled 
that  question.     It  settled  also  the  question  as  to  the  admis- 
sion of  the  "Friends"  by  referring  to  the  answers  of  the 
Larger  Catechism,  Q.  166,  and  Shorter  Catechism,  Q.  95,  the 
undeniable  doctrine  of  which  is   that  they  are  not  to  be 
admitted  into  the  Presbyterian  Body  while  holding  their 
peculiar  views.     Is  Mr.  McCune  so  blind,  are  we  so  blind, 
as  not  to  see  that  to  tolerate  the  omission  of  either  sacra- 
ment, is  to  deny  the  perpetual  and  necessary  obligation  of 
both,  and  unchurch  the  Church?     Is  anything  plainer  in 
the  world  than  that  Mr.  McCune's  profession  of  obedience 
to  Christ,  as  a  minister  of  the  New  Testament,  is  a  dis- 
obedience even  greater  than  to  the  solemn  vows  he  has 
taken  to  support  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ? 
or  are  Mr.  McCune's  views,  the  views  of  the  Friends  ?     Has 
he  yet  to  learn  that  although  some  scruples,  by  applicants, 


[  118  ] 

in  reference  to  infant  baptism  may  be  tolerated,  in  hope 
that  sound  instruction  in  the  word,  and  loving  reverence 
for  Christ's  command,  and  God's  covenant,  will  remove 
them,  yet  no  scruples  as  to  their  own  baptism,  upon  profes- 
sion of  their  faith,  are  or  can  be  tolerated  for  a  single  mo- 
ment? The  Church  is  under  law  to  Christ,  and  every  ap- 
plicant must  come  under  law  to  the  Church.  He  must 
"submit"  to  be  bound  by  the  Church  on  earth,  binding 
by  the  Word  of  Christ  alone,  as  she  hopes  to  have  her  ad- 
ministrative acts  bound  in  heaven.  There  must  be  submis- 
sion to  Christ's  laws.  Digest,  pp.'  675,  676  (7),  107,  (ii,  iv). 
Moderator  and  brethren,  all  this  Mr.  McCune  knows.  He 
is  not  ignorant  of  the  Standards.  It  is  by  no  fault  of  logic 
he  has  been  betrayed  into  his  chosen  position.  The  logic 
is  bad  enough,  but  the  "  I  propose"  is  worse.  His  Organic 
Union  Eosinante  rides  rough-shod  over  the  Standards,  and 
delights  to  prance  and  caper  under  the  spurs  of  her  Don, 
upon  those  very  spots  where  the  truth  especially  comes  into 
contact  with  his  scheme.  He  dismounts  and  lays  his  Or- 
ganic Union  ax  not  "  at,"  but  "  to  "  the  root  of  the  Presby- 
terian tree  ;  the  tree  of  the  visible  Church  ;  the  tree  of  the 
covenant  of  God  ;  the  tree  of  Church  Confessions ;  the  tree 
of  Baptism ;  the  tree  of  Church  polity,  and  leaves  nothing 
unchopped.  His  motto  would  seem  to  be,  '■'■After  me  the 
Deluge ;"  or  ^^ After  me  the  Millennium  !"  He  strikes  down  the 
whole  distinctive  system  of  Presbyterian  doctrine  and  order. 
If  an  unbaptized  person  may  be  a  member,  he  may  be  an 
officer;  if  an  officer,  he  may  be  a  minister.  If  the  title  of 
elders  maj'^be  thrown  away,  the  title  of  ministers  may  be  also. 
Ifhe  may  dispense  with  ordination  by  the  laying  on  of  hands 
in  the  one  case,  he  may  do  so  in  the  other.  There  is  noth- 
ing in  the  principles  of  his  creed-no-creed  to  prevent  an 
unordained,  unbaptized  ministry,  called  "  leaders  of  the 
meeting,"  preaching  to  a  church  of  unbaptized  professing 
Christians  who,  having  voted  to  dispense  with  the  observ- 
ance of  one  sacrament,  are  ready  at  the  next  meeting  to 
dispfense  with  the  observance  of  the  other.  Under  Mr. 
McCune's  polity,  which  makes  or  unmakes  anything  by  a 
vote  of  a  mongrel  congregation,  under  no  constitution,  he 


[  119  ] 

may  do  anything  he  pleases  and  plead  immunity  on  the 
ground  that  he  is  "  outside  Presbyterian  jurisdiction."  The 
organization,  as  such,  that  would  be  left,  acting  on  the 
principles  of  the  new  "  divine  law,"  would  not  be  worth 
the  while  for  Satan  to  tempt  or  Christ  to  save.  If  he  may 
dispense  with  the  Sacraments,  he  may  dispense  with  the 
Word  ;  if  he  may  dispense  with  the  Wprd,  he  may  dispense 
with  the  Master.  Moderator,  such  Organic  Union,  under 
the  guise  of  Christianity,  is  verily  a  "great  sin"  against 
Christ,  His  Cross,  and  His  Crown!  "  Ten  years  ?"  Tell 
it  not  in  Gath  !     I  pass  to  the  ninth  specification. 

SPECIFICATION   IX. 

Saving  Faith —  What  is  it  ? 

This  specification,  and  the  proofs  under  it,  show  what 
Mr.  McCune  thinks  of  Saving  Faith,  the  one  condition  of 
external  Church-membership.  It  also  measures  the  liber- 
ahty  of  judgment  allowable  in  the  ministerial  determina- 
tion of  what  constitutes  credible  evidence  of  regeneracy  in 
a  suppliant  for  Church  ordinances  and  privileges.  As  a 
result  of  the  minimum  quid  creed,  we  have  the  minimum 
quid  faith,  and  the  maximum  quid  liberality  upon  qualifica- 
tions for  Church-membership.  Briefly,  while  it  is  vastly 
important  that  all  Christians  should  believe  in  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Word  of  God,  upon  the  unfailing  certainty  of 
whose  promises  in  and  testimony  concerning  Christ  all  sal- 
vation hangs,  and  the  whole  assurance,  comfort,  peace,  light, 
hope,  and  life  of  a  believing  soul,  yet  such  a  faith  as  this  is 
not  essential  to  being  a  Christian,  and  if  so  then  clearly  not 
essential  to  salvation.  The  conviction  or  inner-conscious  be- 
lief that  the  Bible  can  not  fail,  is  not  even  essential  to  true 
and  saving  faith  itself.  To  sa}'  that  a  part  may  be  infallible, 
and  a  part  not,  is  no  help  here.  It  is  enough  that  "  the 
Bible  is  my  creed,"  without  believing  it  infallible.  "  We 
believe,"  says  Mr.  McCune,  "  that  a  man  may  be  a  Chris- 
tian and  not  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  although 
'  almost'  all  Christians  do  believe  the  Bible  to  be  infallible." 
So,  again,  while  it  is  vastly  important  that  the  testimony  as 


[120] 

to  Christ's  proper  humanity  should  itself  be  true,  and  all 
Christians  believe  it,  yet  such  a  faith  is  not  essential 
to  being  a  Christian,  and,  by  consequence,  not  essential  to 
salvation.  The  attempt  to  find  a  shelter  for  these  views  by 
a  reference  to  Luther,  as  the  defendant  has  already  inti- 
mated, and  to  plead  the  name  of  Dr.  Hodge,  in  addition,  is 
vain.  The  shelter  of  ubiquitarianism,  and  the  criticism  of 
Luther  on  some  parts  of  the  Canon,  will  not  help  the  de- 
fendant to  maintain  statements  so  broad  and  flat-footed  as 
these.  It  is  an  after-thought.  Did  Luther  deny  the  infal- 
libility of  the  Bible?  Did  he  deny  the  proper  humanity  of 
Christ?  The  conviction  or  inner-conscious  belief  that 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Son  of  Mary,  the  Son  of  David,  the 
Son  of  Abraham,  the  Son  of  Adam,  the  Son  of  God,  was, 
and  is,  my  true  Elder  Brother,  whose  soul  and  body  were  a 
sacrifice  to  God  for  human  guilt,  is  not  essential  to  true  and 
saving  faith  itself,  according  to  Mr.  McCune.  It  is  enough 
that  "  Jesus  is  my  Saviour,"  as  "  the  Bible  is  my  creed," 
without  believing  in  His  proper  humanity.  "  We  believe," 
says  Mr.  McCune,  "  that  a  man  may  be  a  Christian  and 
not  believe  in  the  inoper  humanity  of  Christ"  Such  is  the  es- 
sential nature  of  Organic  Union  Saving  Faith.  It  is  the 
acceptance  of  a  testimony  concerning  whose  certainty  the 
soul  remains  in  doubt.  It  is  the  repose  of  the  soul  upon 
the  word  of  One  who  claims  to  be  the  sinner's  substitute, 
but  whose  proper  humanity  the  Christian  calls  in  question. 
It  opens  the  door  for  the  old  exploded  Christological  here- 
sies. The  Bible  may  be  infallible,  but  the  Christian  need 
not  be  sure  that  it  is  so.  Christ  ^/ia?/ be  properly  human, 
but  the  Christian  need  not  be  sure  that  He  is  so.  The  anguish 
of  the  loving  heart,  "  They  have  taken  away  my  Lord  and 
I  know  not  where  they  have  laid  Him,"  can  never  pierce 
a  soul  to  whose  Saving  Faith  no  certainty  that  He.  is  prop- 
erly man,  nor  that  His  word  of  grace  can  ever  fail,  are 
needed.  The  miraculous  office  of  this  Organic  Union  Sav- 
ing Faith  is  (1)  that,  ii^so  facto,  \t  excludes  all  fatal  heresy, 
and  (2)  it  makes  regenerate  souls  all  orthodox  ;  the  one  a 
negative  pole  of  virtue,  the  other  a  positive.     "  A  Saving 


[121] 

Faith   in   Christ,"  says  Mr.  McCune,  "  excludes  all  fatal 
heresies."     Again,  "Regenerate  souls  are  all  orthodox." 

I  beg  of  my  brethren  in  the  ministry  to  note  to  what 
direful  lengths  one  false  principle  lodged  in  the  human 
mind  will  lead,  one  false  interpretation  of  God's  word  !  To 
observe  how  a  man  devoted  to  it  is  borne,  he  knows  not 
whither,  and  stands  "  amazed,"  abashed,  confounded,  when 
confronted  with  his  own  dauguerreotype.  To  Mr  McCune's 
new  non-excluding  "  divine  law  of  organization,"  which 
puts  Union  before  Truth,  and  not  Truth  before  Union;  In- 
difference before  Conscience,  and  not  Conscience  before  Indif- 
ference, is  all  this  dark  perversion  to  be  traced.  Organic 
Union  calls  for  sacrifice,  the  sacrifice  of  Truth,  her  abdica- 
tion of  her  throne.  The  sacrifice  is  made,  and  Toleration 
is  the  cry.  The  necessary  articles  of  the  Christian  Faith 
are  reduced  to  the  smallest  possible  compass,  in  order  to  in- 
clude the  utmost  possible  number.  The  interpretation  of 
the  Scripture  is  put  in  abeyance  only  to  make  room  for  the 
encroachments  of  Infidelity.  The  doctrinal  results  of 
eighteen  centuries,  embodied  in  our  peerless  Standards,  the 
martyr-testimony,  crown,  and  heir-loom  of  our  noble  Church, 
with  all  its  barriers,  guards,  and  chosen  words,  bright  like 
glittering  armory,  and  all  their  histories,  recounting  where 
and  how  the  Truth  was  saved  on  many  a  hard-fought  bat- 
tle-field, all  are  thrown  away.  And  what  is  given  us  here 
instead  ?  The  doctrines  of  Rome,  against  which  the  Re- 
formers fought,  and  over  which  they  triumphed.  Uncer- 
tainty as  to  God's  word!  Uncertainty  of  the  believer's  salva- 
tion !  Room  for  Tradition  to  come  in  here !  Room  for 
salvation  by  works  here  !  Room  for  the  calm  scornful 
smile  of  the  Archbishop  of  Cincinnati !  Room  for  the 
mantling  cheek  of  shame  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  !  The 
Standards  a  shuttlecock,  within  five  years  after  Reunion, 
struck  by  the  battledore  of  Romanism  to  the  one  side, 
struck  back  by  the  battledore  of  Independency  to  the  other  ; 
both  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  MCune.  Or  is  it  the  spirit  of  Modern 
Liberalism,  the  Sceptical  free-thinking  "  Spirit  of  the  Age," 
breathing  through  Organic  Union,  the  Serpent,  in  the  garb 
of  light,  lurking  in  our  Eden,  and  whispering  doubt  as  to 


[  122] 

God's  truth,  saying:  "  Yea,  hath  God  saidf  and  doubt  as 
to  Christ's  proper  humanity,  saying  :  "  Has  He  come  in  the 
flesh  ?" 

"Ithuriel  and  Zephon  !  with  winged  speed, 

Search  through  this  garden  ;   leave  unsearched  no  nook; 

There  tells  of  some  infernal  Spirit  seen, 

Hitherward  bent  (who  could  have  thought?),  escaped 

The  bars  of  hell,  on  errand  bad,  no  doubt; 

Such,  when  ye  find,  seize  fast,  and  hither  bring." 

Moderator,  the  Presbyterian  Standards,  Mr.  McCune  has 
vowed  to  maintain,  teach  that  no  man  can  be  a  "Christian," 
and  "??.o^  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  ;  "  that  no  man 
can  be  a  "Christian,"  and  7iot  believe  in  the  yro'per  humanity 
of  Christ,  and  that  saving  faith  carries  in  its  bosom,  by  ne- 
cessity, the  assurance  that  the  Word  of  God  is  infallible, 
and  that  Christ  is  properly  man.  Our  Confession  of  Faith, 
chap.  XIV,  sees.  1,  2,  declares  that  Saving  Faith  is  a 
"grace,"  "the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  the  heart," 
and  that  "  by  this  faith  a  Christian  believeth  to  be  true, 
whatever  is  revealed  in  the  word,  for  the  authority  of  God 
Himself  sj^eaking  therein."  "He  that  believeth  not  God 
hath  made  Him  a  liar."  It  teaches,  chap.  I,  sec.  5,  that  this 
faith  is  "our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible 
truth  and  Divine  authority  thereof,"  and  that  this  persua- 
sion and  assurance  are  ^^from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  bearing  witness  with  and  by  tlie  Word  in  our  hearts." 
This  is  what  the  Holy  Ghost  does  when  He  makes  a 
"  Christian."  He  enlightens  the  soul  to  know  that  the 
Bible  is  infallibly  true.  The  believer  learns  that  the  "  Su- 
preme Judge  "  in  all-  doubt,  is  "  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in 
the  Scripture."  It  is  not  possible  for  a  man  to  be  a 
"Christian,"  such  an  one  as  the  Holy  Ghost  makes,  and  not 
believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible.  It  is  not  possible 
for  him  to  have  Saving  Faith  and  doubt  the  Word  of  God. 
The  ground  for  his  confidence  is  gone.  To  doubt  its  infalli- 
bility is  to  doubt  its  Inspiration,  for  it  is  the  Inspiration 
that  makes  it  Infallible.  Faith  is  reduced  to  mere  opinion 
or  conjecture,  which  is  not  saving.  The  only  possible  argu- 
ment by  which  to  avoid  the  force  of  these  conclusions,  is 
to  aflirm  that  the  "  Bible  "  is  not  the  "Word  of  God  "  and 


[123] 

that  the  "Word  of  God  "  is  not  the  "Bible."  Moderator, 
our  Standards  have  settled  this  matter  for  all  Tresbyteriaa 
ministers,  and  no  one  in  our  Church  has  a  right  to  teach 
any  such  doctrine.  Our  standards  expressly  declare  that 
the  Bible  is  all  the  Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
and  enumerates  them  in  order.  Our  Confession  says,  "Under 
the  name  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  Word  of  God  written, 
are  now  contained  all  the  Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Test- 
aments, which  are  these,"  and  every  Presbyterian  minister 
solemnly  affirms  that  he  receives  them  as  the  "Word  of 
God,"  and  the  "  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 
The  "  Bible  "  is  the  "  Word  of  God,"  and  the  "  Word  of  God" 
is  "  the  Bible,"  all  whose  books  our  Standards  affirm  are 
"given  by  inspiration  of  God."  And  so  as  to  our  Lord's 
proper  humanity.  Our  Shorter  Catechism  tells  us  that 
Saving  Faith  "  is  a.  Saving  Grace  whereby  we  receive  and 
rest  upon  Christ  alone  for  salvation,  as  He  is  offered  to  us  in 
the  gospel."  Q.  86.  And  how  He  is  offered  to  us  in  the 
gospel  we  are  told  in  these  words,  "Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
became  mail,  by  taking  to  Himself  a  true  body  and  a  reason- 
able souV  Q.  22.  Also  Large  Cat.  Q's.  36,  37,  39,  where 
His  humaanity  is  declared  to  be  a  necessity  iov  our  salvation. 
The  object  of  Saving  Faith  is  not  a  phantom,  not  a  picture 
in  the  mind,  not  an  ideal  Jesus,  not  a  work  of  imagination, 
but  the  Son  of  God  in  flesh;  i.  e.,  human  nature,  ^^ proper 
humanity"  a  "  Than"  who  is  also  God.  Deity,  apart  from 
humanity,  is  no  object  of  Saving  Faith.  Humanity,  apart 
from  Deity,  is  none.  Saving  Faith  must  believe  in  both, 
or  it  can  not  be  saving,  because  it  dqes  not  receive  Christ 
"as  He  is  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel."  It  is  the  mark  of  an- 
cient as  of  modern  Anti-Christianity,  to  deny  that  "Christ 
has  come  in  the  flesh."  It  is  next  door  to  it  to  "not  believe" 
that  He  has  so  come,  and  not  far  from  it  to  question  His 
proper  humanity.  It  is  not  possible  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
work  in  a  sinner's  soul  Saving  Faith  in  Christ,  and  allow 
him  "  not  to  believe  in  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ." 
Without  that  humanity  there  is  no  sacrifice,  no  atonement, 
no  death,  no  resurrection,  no  ascension.  To  not  believe  in 
the  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  is  to  not  believe  in  its  inspi- 


[124] 

ration.  To  not  believe  in  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ 
is  to  not  believe  in  his  true  Incarnation.  "When  Inspira- 
tion and  Incarnation  are  thrown  into  doubt,  where  is  the 
saving  faith  ?  If  a  Christian  need  not  believe  that  Christ 
was  properly  man,  he  need  not  believe  that  He  died  on  the 
cross  or  rose  from  the  dead.  The  organic-union-liberal- 
possible  Christian  is  simply  an  infidel.  And  yet  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune  would  receive  him,  and  informs  us  that  such  saving 
faith  as  leaves  the  "Word  of  God,  and  the  work  of 
Christ  in  doubt,  ijyso  facto,  "  excludes  all  fatal  heresies  "  ( !), 
and  that  the  possession  of  such  faith  is  "  credible  evidence  " 
of  regeneration  (!!),  and  that  "regenerate  souls  are  all 
orthodox|( ! !  ! )  What  fatal  heresy  does  it  not  include  ?  It 
is  fatal  heresy  itself.  Who  are  the  "  regenerate  ?  "  They 
are  unbelievers.  Who  are  the  "  orthodox  ?  "  The  doubt- 
ers of  God's  Word  and  Christ's  proper-humanity.  All  this 
Mr.  McCune  will  tolerate  in  others,  even  though  he  may 
try  to  explain  it  away  for  himself.  Is  this  the  justifying 
faith  of  the  gospel,  defined  from  its  source,  the  Spirit;  from 
its  seat,  the  heart ;  from  its  food,  the  Word ;  from  its  object, 
Christ ;  and  from  its  end,  salvation  ?  Sir,  it  is  just  like  the 
loyalty,  in  face  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Standards  which 
teaches  that  the  number  of  the  elect  is  "so  certain  and 
(iefinite  that  it  can  not  be  increased  or  diminished,"  the  loy- 
alty that  teaches  in  Mr.  McCune's  language,  there  are  "  mul- 
titudes in  the  pit  of  despair  who  might  have  been  blessedly 
and  eternally  saved "  if  only  organic  union  had  existed 
from  the  beginning.  Christian  Standard,  July  31,  1875,  p. 
245.  Is  this  the  orthodoxy  of  our  Standards  ?  Is  it  loy- 
alty to  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  "  Ten  years."  Publish 
it  not  in  Askelon !     I  pass  to  the  tenth  specification. 

SPECIFICATION   X. 

Time  of  Advocating  His  Views. 

This  specification,  with  its  appended  proofs,  establishes 
the  fact  beyond  question  of  the  sincerity  of  Mr.  McCune  in 
the  advocacy  of  his  peculiar  views.  They  are  his  abiding 
convictions,  formed  after  mature  deliberation,  and  during 


[  125  ] 

protracted  and  various  discussion,  and  nourished  with  as- 
siduous care.  They  are  no  transient  misjudgments,  slips 
of  the  pen,  unreiterated  statenaents,  words  hastily  spoken, 
or  positions  thoughtlessly  taken.  The  Prosecution  could 
have  overburdened  the  Court  with  a  still  more  redundant 
testimony.  They  are  the  result  of  a  consistent  scheme, 
built  on  the  boundless  license  of  the  new  "  divine  law  of 
organization,"  a  scheme  revolutionary  of  all  existing  de- 
nominations but  its  own.  "  Ten  years  "  have  testified  to 
its  propagation,  within  the  bounds  of  this  Presbytery,  in 
every  way  possible  for  a  propagation  to  be  made.  The  time, 
therefore,  as  the  manner  of  this  advocacy,  is  a  demonstra- 
tion of  Mr.  McCune's  sincerity  herein.  "  Ten  years  "  of 
unchallenged  liberty,  he  numbers,  as  if  establishing  his 
right  to  continue  the  advocacy  as  long  as  he  chooses.  He 
pleads  five  of  these  ten,  the  period  since  the  official  order 
of  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati  to  circulate  his  views  of  organic 
union,  as  a  special  period  of  encouragement,  enough  to  jus- 
tify a  double  protest  against  the  Presbytery's  right  to  bring 
both  them  and  himself  under  formal  adjudication.  "I 
am,"  says  he,  "  advocating  no  sentiments  now  (Feb.  15, 
1876),  which  I  have  not  oj^enly  'proclaimed  for  ten  years 
back.'''  It  is  the  truth.  He  affirms  that  the  liberty  he  has 
enjoyed  in  the  Presbytery  for  all  these  years  remained  offi- 
cially "  unquestioned  until  Dr.  Skinner  raadej"  what  he 
calls  "his  attack  upon  him  ;"  i.  e.  until  the  time  of  the 
Council  that  installed  him  at  Mt.  Lookout,  Dec.  1875.  His 
convictions  are  sincere,  if  time  is  an  evidence  of  sincerity. 
He  proposes  still  to  advocate  them.  "  I  have  publicly  ad- 
vocated," says  he  to  the  Committee,  "  and  propose  to  advo- 
cate the  following  principles  on  the  subject  of  Christian 
Union,  etc,"  principles  declaring  all  denominational  enact- 
ments, and  distinctive  creed  statements,  as  "wedges  of  divis- 
ion," "  apples  of  discord,"  "Achan  in  the  camp,"  and  their 
enforcement  as  "  essentially  sinful."  Thus,  for  "  many 
years,"  last  past,  as  propagandist  and  Apostle  of  Organic 
Union  on  such  a  Basis,  he  has  diftused  his  teachings 
throughout  the  Christian  community,  as  editor  in  his  paper, 
as  minister  in  his  pulpit,  as  debater  in  the  press,  as  lecturer 


[  126  ] 

in  the  country,  in  all  possible  ways,  invoking  the  cry  of 
"Sectarianism,"  "  Bigotry,"  "  Popery,"  against  those  who 
have  dared  to  oppose  him.  Under  the  claim  of  "Con- 
science," "  Toleration,"  and  "  Liberty,"  he  has  espoused 
and  crusaded  a  doctrinal  communism,  and  an  ecclesiastical 
phalanstery,  of  which  Brown,  Fourier,  St.  Simon,  and 
Robert  Dale  Owen  might  be  proud. 

It  is  a  fair  question.  Moderator  and  brethren,  how  much 
time  a  teacher  of  error  may  be  allowed  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  for  the  advocacy  of  views  destructive  of  her  Con- 
stitution and  her  very  existence?  If  Mr.  McCune  may  be 
allowed  "  ten  years,"  the  rest  of  us  may  be  allowed  the 
same.  Paul,  at  Antioch,  yielded,  "  no,  not  for  an  hour,  that 
the  truth  of  the  gospel  might  remain."  Evidently  he  did  not 
favor  any  Organic  Union  scheme  the  Judaizers  proposed, 
or  Peter  compromisingly  winked  at  for  the  time.  A  "  Plan 
of  Union,"  enacted  in  1801,  endured  a  generation,  and  was 
brought  to  its  close  by  legislative  enactment  in  1838,  in 
order  to  save  the  Standards.  For  several  years  past,  more 
than  a  hundred  Presbyterian  ministers  allow  their  names 
to  be  appended,  in  a  religious  paper,  published  at  Brooklyn, 
and  devoted  to  Organic  Church  Union,  to  a  "brief  creed," 
which  Unitarians,  or .  Semi-Pelagians,  or  Arminians,  or 
Prelatists,  or  Independents,  could  readily  subscribe.  "Tea 
years  "  may  make  a  revelation.  "  Vereor  quorsum  evadat ! " 
Thirty-eight  years  ago  was  the  following  utterance  made; 
"  We  have  in  our  Church  many  men  w^io  are  avowed  anti- 
sectarians,  who  think  the  barriers  which  separate  the  differ- 
ent denominations  of  Christians  should  be  broken  down. 
It  is  a  possible  case  that  men  of  these  opinions  should  have, 
on  some  occasion,  an  accidental  majority  in  the  General 
Assembly.  Suppose  they  should  avail  themselves  of  the 
opportunity  to  enact  a  plan  of  Union,  by  which,  not  the 
favored  Congregatioualist  only,  but  the  Episcopalian,  the 
Baptist,  and  even  the  Papist,  should  be  allowed  to  sit  and 
vote  in  all  our  Presbyteries.  This  would  be  hailed  with  de- 
light by  many  as  the  commencement  of  a  new  era,  as  the 
adoption  of  a  principle  which  could  stand  the  test  of  the 
millenium."     Princeton  Essays  (Second  Series),  p.  281.     It 


[127] 

is  possible  that  in  "  ten  years  "  from  now  something  of  this 
nature  might  be  attempted.  It  was  not  possible  for  thirty- 
years  past,  in  either  branch  of  our  Church.  But  as  things 
now  go  with  so  many,  and  "  Union"  is  put  before  ^^  Truth" 
and  things  allowed  in  the  Reunion  that  never  would  have  — 
been  tolerated  in  either  branch  during  a  generation  past,  it 
is  fair  to  ask,  how  long,  now,  may  a  man  be  permitted  to 
propagate  views  and  principles,  which  not  only  strike  at  our 
standards  of  doctrine  and  order,  but  also  at  the  very  truth  of 
God  itself,  and  at  the  very  existence  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church?  The  ancient  watchword  of  historic  Presbyterianism 
was"J'r?;iA  before  Union."  The  Reformers  valued  it  more 
than  all  else.  They  abandoned  the  boasted  Organic  Union  of 
Rome,  in  order  to  save  the  Organic  Truth  of  God.  "  The 
Paulickian  line  of  witnesses  took  "  Heavenly  Truth  "  for 
their  motto.  The  Waldensian  line  held  aloft  in  the  Alps 
and  in  the  valleys  of  Piedmont  their  Valdic  "Lucerna,"  a 
lighted  candlestick  amid  surrounding  darkness,  inscribed 
with  the  words  '■'■Lux  tucet  in  Tenebris  " — "  the  light  shineth 
in  the  darkness,"  although  the  fields  were  as  green,  and  the 
sky  as  blue,  and  the  sun  as  bright  as  they  are  now.  They 
put  '^  Truth  before  Union."  Calvin's  motto  was  Paul's, 
'•  Let  God  be  true  and  every  man  a  liar."  "  We  can  do 
nothing  against  the  Truth,"  not  even  Organic  Union.  But 
now  the  times  are  changed,  and  we  with  them.  "7e?i 
years"  to  ply  the  misinterpretation  of  Rom.  15:  7.  "I'ew 
years"  to  teach  that  our  Lord's  intercessory  prayer  neces- 
sitates the  breaking  up  of  all  the  evangelical  denominations 
as  such,  and  the  non -enforcement  of  the  denominational 
laws  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  "  Ten  years  "  for  a  Pres- 
byterian minister  to  exclaim  against  Church  creeds  and 
confessions,  and  denounce  his  own,  among  the  rest,  as  "  sec- 
tarian." '■'■Ten  years"  to  harp  on  the  word  "Evangelical," 
as  though  it  were  a  word,  not  of  shades  and  degrees,  but  of 
absoluteness  in  its  application. '^," 7 en  years"  to  mutilate 
and  deny  God's  covenant  in  Christ,  with  believers,  in  be- 
half of  their  children,  and  take  away  the  covenant  founda- 
tion of  the  Church  itself.  "Ten  years"  to  advocate  doc- 
trines and  views  antagonistic  to  the  very  essence  of  our 


[128] 

Eldership  polity.  "  Ten  years  "  to  preach  that  the  visible 
Church  is  the  "  Body  of  Christ,"  and  break  down  the  apos- 
tolic distinction  Rome  destroyed,  and  the  Reformers  re- 
claimed, as  they  searched  for  the  Truth.  '■'■Ten  years"  to 
deny  infant  church-membership,  advocate  the  admission  of 
unbaptized  professors  to  full  communion,  and  permission  to 
dispense  with  the  sacraments  of  the  Church.  '-Ten  years'' 
to  proclaim  the  right  of  a  Presbyterian  minister  to  be  under 
two  different  creeds  and  antagonizing  allegiances  at  the 
same  time,  and  church  members  under  two  conflicting  ju- 
risdictions. '■''Ten  years''  to  herald  non-excluding  terms  of 
ministerial  fellowship,  '■'■Ten  years"  to  maintain  that  ordi- 
nation vows  do  not  bind,  or  bind  only  to  what  each  minis- 
ter chooses  to  teach.  "  Ten  years  "  to  assert  that  the  Presby- 
terian law  is  an  oppression  of  the  conscience,  and  that  the 
time  has  come  to  wake  up  and  begin  a  reorganization  of 
the  whole  IN'ew  Testament  Church!  "  Ten  years"  of  set 
purpose  and  assiduous  labor  to  "imbrue  the  whole  denom- 
ination "  with  these  organic  union  principles ;  and  now  the 
word  that  "  eight  or  ten  years  ago  "  it  might  have  done  to 
raise  the  point  whether  such  liberty  and  such  advocacy 
might  be  questioned,  "  but  now  it  is  too  late  ! "  There  is  some 
force  in  this.  How  long  may  a  Presbyterian  minister  go  on 
in  this  way,  and  how  long  "  propose  "  still  to  go  on  ? 

Moderator  and  Brethren,  I  present  it  as  a  case  of  Unpar- 
alleled license  and  persistence,  on  the  part  of  any  minister, 
in  the  history  of  the  Presbyterian,  or  any  other  denomina- 
tion, whose  respect  for  its  own  honor,  and  the  honor  of  re- 
ligion and  truth  has  not  yet  departed,  and  on  whose  eccle- 
siastical walls  "  Ichabod  "  has  not  yet  been  written.  And 
I  present  the  additional  aggravation  of  an  utter  disregard 
of  the  conscientious  feelings  of  his  brethren  in  the  minis- 
try, and  of  the  respect  due  to  this  Court,  and  of  the  peace 
of  the  Church,  as  also  a  disregard  of  the  proprieties  and 
duties  incumbent  upon  him  in  the  circumstances, — a  disre- 
gard no  less  manifest  than  that  displayed  toward  the  Stand- 
ards and  the  Presbyterian  Church  itself, — persisting  with 
more  than  indifference  to  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  in 
the  public  propagation  of  his  views,  without  restraint,  even 


[129] 

after  his  course  had  been  brought  to  official  notice,  and  his 
case  put  under  official  examination. 

It  was  on  April  13,  1876,  the  Presbytery's  resolution  of 
inquiry  was  passed.  Respect  for  that  action  should  have 
prompted  Mr.  McCune  to  abstain  from  the  further  propa- 
gation of  his  views  until  an  official  judgment  had  been 
reached  by  his  brethren.  Instead  of  this,  we  find  him, 
May  8,  1876,  only  a  little  over  three  weeks  after  the  Pres- 
bytery's action,  publicly  advocating  again  his  views  on  De- 
nominations, the  Church  of  God,  Infant  Baptism,  Terms  of 
Communion,  Admission  of  the  Unbaptized,  his  whole 
scheme,  precisely  as  before,  in  presence  of  the  General 
Ministerial  Association  of  Cincinnati.  This  was  contempt, 
if  not  contumacy.  Again,  his  views  are  spread  abroad  in 
the  public  press.  May  9,  1876.  IsTot  less  confident  does  he 
appear  June  26,  1876,  in  presence  of  the  Presbytery's  In- 
vestigating Committee,  to  whom  he  oflters  a  paper,  given 
back,  however,  to  be  substituted  by  one  less  convicting,  but 
still  replaced  by  another,  informing  the  committee  that  he 
"proposes"  to  keep  on  just  as  before,  and  declaring  that 
"  it  is  susceptible  of  proof  that  the  advocacy  of  this  Chris- 
tian union  doctrine  has  been  with  the  knowledge  and  by 
the  permission  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati  and  by  the 
consent  and  with  the  co-operation  of  the  Synod  of  Cincin- 
nati, and  that  this.advocacy  is  not  in  violation  of  any  Pres- 
byterian law  whatever."  Nor  less  naarked  was  the  public 
disrespect  to  the  Presbytery  and  his  brethren,  by  again  the 
third  time  reiterating  his  views  to  the  public  in  a  formal 
protest  against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery,  published  Oc- 
tober 17,  1876,  in  the  Commercial,  replete  with  such  gross 
personalities,  as  would  bar  it  from  a  place  on  the  official 
records,  yet  published  to  the  world  before  presentation  of  it 
to  this  body.  I  present  it.  Moderator,  as  unexampled  in 
the  history  of  our  Church.  May  it  please  the  Court,  that 
"  ten  years"  of  such  advocacy  be  the  extreme  limit  of  the 
indulgence  ! 

The  Presbyterian  Church,  stirred  by  Common  Fame,  and 
grieved  at  such  persistence,  comes  into  Court  with  a  right- 
eous plaint  in  her  mouth,  making  solemn  averment  that 


[130] 

she  receives  but  damage  and  demoralization,  by  such  lib- 
erty, assumed  either  by  ministers  or  elders.  She  pleads  that 
she  can  not  build  while  buiieted  by  her  own  sons,  or  main- 
tain either  her  prestige  or  honor,  while  her  name  is  denied, 
her  distinctive  enactments  and  organic  law  traduced,  and 
her  authority  treated  with  contempt;  and  that  the  doc- 
trines, principles,  and  views  of  Mr.  McCune,  like  the  man- 
ner of  their  advocacy,  are  not  only  at  war  with  her  stand- 
ards, but,  if  generally  accepted,  would  be  subversive  of  her 
constitution  and  of  her  very  existence  as  a  distinctive  de- 
nomination. 

The  prosecution  does  not  dwell  upon  the  law,  but  simply 
refers  to  it.  Not  one  hour  is  allowed  for  such  a  license,  not 
one  moment,  by  our  statute.  It  is  disloyalty.  Our  Church 
requires  her  ministry  "  to  teach  and  preach  according  to 
the  form  of  sound  words  in  the  Confession  and  Catechisms, 
and  avoid  and  oppose  all  errors  contrary  thereto."  Digest,  p. 
48  (II).  To  "  traduce  "  her  Standards  is  a  call  for  "  that 
salutary  discipline  which  hath  for  its  object  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church  under  the 
government  of  her  Great  Master."  p.  43  (3).  They  who 
can  not  accept  her  denominational  laws  are  invited  to 
"  peaceably  withdraw."  p.  48  (I).  Strong  is  the  injunc- 
tion of  our  Supreme  CouVt,  signed  by  the  Moderator,  the 
mentor  of  his  day  :  "  Let  no  doctrine  inconsistent  with  the 
Sacred  Scriptures,  as  explained  and  summarily  taught  in  the 
doctrinal  Standards  of  our  Church,  be  promulgated  or 
favored  in  any  of  our  Churches"  "  He  who  teaches 
any  doctrine,  pal.pably  and  plainly  inconsistent  with  the 
evident  meaning  of  our  excellent  formularies,  should 
be  regarded  as  an  errorist  by  Presbyterians,  whom  they 
ought  not  to  encourage,  but  ■  discountenance,  reject,  and 
avoid."  p.  304  (8).  This  is  our  law.  It  remains  to  be 
seen  whether  our  -'  Reunion"  will  respect  it.  I  pass  to  the 
eleventh  specification. 


[131] 


SPECIFICATION    XI. 

Common  Fame. 

This  specification,  with  its  proofs,  establishes  the  fact  of 
the  Common  Fame  of  Mr.  McCune's  disloyalty  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  loudly  proclaiming  that,  in  contra- 
vention of  his  vows,  he  was  the  public  advocate  of  prin- 
ciples and  views  at  war  with  our  standards,  and  subversive, 
if  generally  accepted,  of  our  Doctrines,  Constitution,  and 
very  existence  ;  a  fame  accompanied  not  only  with  strong 
presumption  of  its  truth,  but  living  demonstration,  as  al- 
ready shown,  during  a  period  of  "  ten  years;"  an  offense 
striking  at  vital  truths  of  Divine  Revelation,  and  the  very 
foundations  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  calling  for 
action  by  this  Court.  The  Court  will  note  that  of  the 
many  articles  in  the  thirteen  different  secular  and  religious 
papers  enumerated  in  Proof  1,  under  this  Specification, 
some  forty  or  more  of  which  are  editorial,  most  of  them 
condemning  in  the  strongest  possible  manner  Mr.  McCune's 
views,  and  some  of  them  his  course,  not  one  was  pub- 
lished subsequent  to  April  13,  1876,  the  date  of  the  Presby- 
tery's resolution  at  Glendale,  when  the  views  and  course  of 
Mr.  McCune  were,  for  the  first  time,  formally  brought  to 
the  notice  of  the  Presbytery,  and  the  following  Preamble 
and  Eesolution  were  passed  :  "  Whereas,  for  some  time  past, 
there  have  been  current  rumors  in  regard  to  the  views  and 
course  of  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  a  member  of  this  Presby- 
tery, involving  the  question  of  his  loyalty  to  the  order  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  whereas  there  seems  to  be 
some  difference  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  subject, 

"  Therefore,  resolved,  that  a  Committee  of  three  minis- 
ters and  two  elders  be  appointed  to  have  a  full  confer- 
ence with  Mr.  McCune,  and  to  inquire  into  all  the  facts 
bearing  on  the  case,  and  report  to  Presbytery  at  the  next 
stated  meeting."  The  Common  Fame  as  to  the  charge 
was  not  only  co-extensive  with  the  jurisdiction  of  both  the 
Presbytery  and  the  Synod,  not  merely  co-extensive  with 
the  bounds  of  neighboring  Synods,  but  with  those  of  the 


[  132  ] 

Presbyterian  Church  itself,  North  and  South,  East  and 
West,  long  before  the  Presbytery  met  April  13, 1876.  The 
Court  will  also  notice  that  all  this  superabundant  evidence 
of  Common  Fame  is  only  adduced  by  the  prosecution  as 
additional  or  supplementary  to  what  is  already  manifest  from 
the  dates 'in  the  proofs  already  given.  It  is  added  to  show 
the  ample  ground  for  action  by  the  Presbytery.  The  Presby- 
terian Church,  therefore,  conducts  her  process  properly  on 
the  ground  of  Common  Fame,  and  this  Court  is  abundantly 
justified  in  ordering  up  the  prosecution  for  this  reason.  It 
will  also  be  noted,  by  a  comparison  of  dates,  that  the  reso- 
lution of  the  Glendale  Presbytery,  April  13,  1876,  was  not 
taken  until  Jive  months  after  the  claimed  and  reputed  organ- 
ization of  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Church,  Novem- 
ber, 1875.  That  part  of  the  Investigating  Committee's  Re- 
port, which  episcopally  condemns  the  views  of  Mr.  McCune, 
is  quoted  in  Proof  3  of  the  specification,  in  order  to  show 
that  the  presumption  of  the  truth  of  Common  Fame  was 
a  true  presumption,  even  apart  from  the  documentary  evi- 
dence spread  broadcast  in  the  editorial  cohimns  and  public 
discussions  antecedent  to  April  13,  1876.  On  that  portion 
of  the  evidence  the  prosecution  make  no  comment.  Our 
Church  recognizes  that  Common  Fame  may  be  common 
falsehood,  and  is  ready  to  mete  to  it  the  condemnation  it 
deserves.  But  that  any  Presbyterian  minister  should'pur- 
sue  such  a  course  as,  by  his  own  acts,  to  intensify  the 
truth  of  Common  Fame,  charging  him  with  disloyalty  to 
the  Faith  and  Order  of  his  Church,  such  that  the  scandal 
can  not  be  removed  without  the  action  of  the  Court,  and 
for  the  honor  of  religion,  our  Book  accounts  a  "  sin."  Di- 
gest, pp.  521  (V.VI),  499  (IV.V). 


[  133  ] 

Offense :  Disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

CHARGE  II. 

The  character  of  this  Charge  is  that  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Mc- 
Cune,  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  carrying  into  practical 
eftect  the  doctrines,  views,  and  principles  specified  under 
Charge  I,  bent  his  energies  to  the  work  of  advising,  pro- 
moting, and  encouraging  the  New  Anti-Denominational 
Association,  called  distinctively  the  "  Union  Christian 
Churches  of  America"  and  also  the  Anti-Denominational 
Organization  at  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  both  these  or- 
ganizations being  founded  on  the  doctrines,  principles,  and 
views  aforesaid.  The  gravamen  of  this  charge  is  the  same 
as  that  of  Charge  I,  viz.,  that  such  course  of  conduct,  if 
generally  allowed,  would  totally  subvert  our  Constitution 
and  destroy  the  Presbyterian  Denomination. 

SPECIFICATION   I. 

General  Association. 

The  first  Specification  calls  attention  to  the  means  Mr. 
McCune  has  employed  in  this  work.  The  Prosecution  note 
that,  immediately  after  the  New  York  Convention,  October 
1873,  met  to  "  make  immediate  and  prayerful  preparation 
for  the  reorganization"  of  the  whole  "  Christian  Church," 
the  '■'■Christian  Unity"  appeared  in  Cincinnati,  under  the 
sole  editorship  of  Mr.  McCune,  its  first  number  bearing 
date  Cincinnati,  November  8,  1873.  That  number  is  here- 
with presented.  Then  began  the  work  in  earnest.  "Life 
is  short,  and  time  is  fleeting."  The  editor  tells  us  "  when 
he  began  the  8th  of  November  to  issue  this  paper,  he,  at 
the  same  time,  began  to  deliver  lectures  on  the  subject  of 
Christian  Unity."  His  "most  efficient  instrumentalities" 
were  "  public  oral  addresses  and  the  press."  The  tone  of 
the  editorials  and  addresses,  together,  reveal  the  fact  that 
he  was  hopeful,  and  not  in  the  least  appalled  by  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  undertaking.  He  saw  "  a  great  host  of  living 
Christian  hearts,  now  separated  by  mere  human  sectarian 


[134] 

walls,"  who,  "  but  for  sectarian  managers  and  place-men, 
would    gladly  unite   to-morrow  in  the   new  movement!" 
With  the  'zeal  of  an  Apostle  he  addresses  himself  to  the 
work.     John  in  the  desert  crying,  "Prepare  ye  the  way  of 
the  Lord,"  was  not  more  in  earnest.     Proof  2,  under  the 
Specification,  shows  us  Mr.  McCune  in  the  field;  how  by 
lecturing  at  large,  traversing  the  bounds  of  the  Synod,  and 
outside  of  it,  he  discoursed  on  Organic  Union  at  Butler, 
Boston,  and    IS'ewport   in   Kentucky;    in    Goshen,    South 
Salem,  and  at  Parrott's  School  House,  in  Ohio ;  how  Lin- 
den and  Springfield,  Urbana  and  Buck  Creek,  New  Rich- 
mond and  Hillsboro,  woke  their  echoes  to  his  voice;  how 
Madison  and   Middleton  hearkened  attentive  on  Sabbath 
morning  to  the  new  "  divine  law  of  organization,"  and  the 
afternoon  bore  the  accents  to  Astoria,  while  the  shades  of 
eveni  ng  that  fell  around  Jacksonburg  were  illumined  with  the 
shimmeFmg  light  of  the  advancing  millennium !  "  Eighteen  " 
different  places  within  one  month,  between  ITovember  8 
and  December  13,  all  led  listening  to  the  music  of  Organic 
Union,  as  when  Orpheus  charmed  the  woods  with  his  lyre — 
a  zeal  Apostolic,  worthy  of  Loyola  and  St.  Xavier !     And 
so  the  work  went   on.     Next  comes  the  wide  sweeping 
"  Address  to  all  the  Christian  Ministers  and  Churches  in  North 
America,  with  a  Basis  of  Unio7i,"  issued  from  Cincinnati, 
October  1874,  th~e  topmost  signature  to  which  is  thkt  of  Mr. 
McCune,  calling  on  all  sympathizing  ministers  and  mem- 
bers, everywhere,  to  range  themselves  under  the  banner  of 
the  new  Anti-Denominational  Association,  to  be  known  as 
the  "  Union  Christian  Churches  of  America"  adopting  the 
Basis  and  enrolling  their  names;  how,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
charge  of  forming  a  "  new  sect,"  they  were  to  hold  on  and 
let  go  at  the  same  time,  if  they  "  c^o  not  deem  it  expedient  to 
sever  existing  denominational  relations;"  to  remain  as  min- 
isters and  members  in  the  old  "extra-scriptural"  organi- 
zation and  yet  enter  the  new  one  "  on  a  New  Testament 
Basis,"  after  the  true  Apostolic  style ;  that  ministers  will 
be  asked  no  questions  except  whether  they  agree  to  a  few 
unexplained  texts,  "  expressed  in  God's  own  language  as 
commonly  received,"  and  which  they  are  told  constitute  the 


[  135  ] 

"  common  faith,"  "  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints ;"  to 
be  sure  and  send  "  delegates  "  to  attend  the  impending  Gen- 
eral Convention  at  Sufl'olk,  Virginia,  on  the  first  Wednes- 
day of  May,  1875,  and,  in  particular,  to  advocate  the  prin- 
ciples of  Organic  Union  as  set  forth  in  the  Basis.  (See 
Specification  V,  Proofs  2,  3,  6).  What  fortunes  attended 
the  call  we  know  not.     The  Convention  at  Sufiblk  was  held. 

Temporarily  suspended,  the  '■''Christian  Unity'' is  again 
resumed,  not  upon  the  principle  of  non-enforcement,  but 
upon  the  principle  of  re-inforcement,  the  paper  appearing 
August  1,  1875,  under  the  joint  triple  editorship  of  the 
Eev.  W.  B.  Wellons,  D.D.,  Thomas  J.  Melish,  and  W.  C. 
McCune,  issued  both  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  and  Sufiblk,  Vir- 
ginia. A  copy  is  herewith  presented.  Again  the  "  pro- 
ject," "scheme,"  and  "aim"  are  manifest.  The  ring  of 
determination  travels  through  the  tri-editorials.  The 
"  Christian  Unity,''  says  Mr.  McCune,  "  begins  its  career 
with  fixed  purposes  and  aims.  It  will  earnestly  contend 
that  in  examining  candidates  for  the  ministry  all  tests  shall 
be  laid  aside  except  such  as  develope  the  faith  common  to  the 
evangelical  family  of  Christians."  (Specification  V,  Proof 
6).  In  the  "Prospectus"  Mr.  Thrall  is  already  taken  to 
task  for  shrinking  from  a  substantial,  realistic,  and  bodily 
oneness  of  actual  visible  organization  to  the  movement! 
The  co-editor  of  Mr.  McCune  exclaims,  "  We  must  organ- 
ize, band  ourselves  together  as  ministers  and  churches;  this 
was  what  was  meant  in  New  York  in  October  1873,  at  Cin- 
cinnati, October  1874,  and  at  Snflfolk  in.  1875.  Let  the  loork 
of  orga:nization  go  on !"  The  kingdom  of  God  was  now  to 
"  come  with  observation."  Some  Texans  meet  in  Conven- 
tion at  Somerville,  April  30, 1875,  and  adopted  the  Organic 
Union  plan.  Dr.  Wellons  sweetly  writes;  "  Lo  there ! " 
Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  loom  in  the  horizon  shortly 
after ;  Mr.  McCune  as  sweetly  murmurs,  "  Lo  here ! "  Was 
it  not  part  and  parcel  of  the  same  movement? 

And  now.  Moderator  and  Brethren,  can  there  be  a  doubt 
on  the  mind  of  the  Court  that  Mr.  McCune  is  actually  a 
member  of  a  new  anti-denominational  association  of  min- 
isters, organized  under  a  Special  Basis,  for  the  express  pur- 


[136] 

pose  of  striking  at  Denominationalism,  and  beginning  a  re- 
construction of  the  Christian  Church  ?  I  have  shown  you 
the  first  fact,  under  Specification  Y,  Proofs  2,  3,  6,  when 
exhibiting  Mr.  McCune's  Plurality  theory  of  membership, 
that  a  new  independent  church-organization  does  exist, 
*'  known  as  the  Union  Christian  Churches  of  America" — pro- 
claiming that  it  is  no  "sect,"  because  it  receives  all  Chris- 
tians, but  is  modeled  after  the  apostolic  type,  on  a  non -ex- 
cluding "  divine  law  of  organization,"  as  Mr.  McCune  calls 
it,  or  on  "  a  New  Testament  Basis."  I  have  shown  you  the 
second  fact,  that  "  any  minister  "  who  "  adopts  "  this  Basis 
of  independent  association,  and  asks  to  be  "  enrolled,"  is 
"  enrolled  at  his  own  request "  into  the  new  fellowship,  and 
is  henceforth  an  integral  part  of  the  new  organization,  and 
is  known  as  a  "  Union  Christian  minister,"  ministerially 
identified  with  that  body,  and  that  "  project,"  "  scheme," 
and  "  aim."  I  have  shown  you  the  third  fact,  also,  that 
Mr.  McCune's  name  is  the  topmost  signature  in  the  list  of 
names  appended  to  the  "  Basis  of  Union  "  addressed  to  all 
the  ministers  and  churches  of  JSTorth  America, — a  Basis 
"  devised  "  in  Cincinnati,  and  adopted  and  signed  October 
24, 1874,  at  the  "Rooms  of  the  Young  Men's  Christian  As- 
sociation, Cincinnati,  Ohio,"  where  the  Convention  met,  and 
confirmed  at  the  Suflblk  Convention,  May,  1875.  Signed, 
"W.  C.  McCune  and  others.  The  fourth  fact  is  irresistible, 
viz.,  that  Mr.  McCune  has  been  "enrolled  "  upon  that  list, 
"  at  his  own  request,"  because  he  has  complied  with  the 
conditions  of  entrance  into  the  new  organization,  viz., 
adoption  of  the  Basis.  He  may  have  enrolled  himself  for 
aught  we  know,  for  the  Basis  hails  from  the  Rooms  of  the 
Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  in  Cincinnati,  where  it 
was  unanimously  adopted.  He  is,  therefore,  by  his  own 
act,  a  member  of  the  new  organization,  for  the  purposes 
aforesaid.  He  has,  by  his  own  act,  become  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  independent  Councils  and  Conventions  in 
general,  an  advisory  jurisdiction,  as  is  the  case  among  all 
independent  organizations,  and,  as  I  shall  show,  has  become 
subject  to  the  particular  jurisdiction  of  an  individual  con- 
gregation, whose  polity  and  creed  he  prepared  for  their 


[  137  ] 

adoption  upon  this  Basis,  and  in  view  of  his  own  election 
as  its  pastor, — the  minister  being  always,  according  to  the 
independent  polity,  a  Vnember  of  the  congregation,  and  eli- 
gible, by  the  congregation,  to  a  seat  in  any  Council  or  Con- 
vention, only  as  a  "  delegate^'  of  the  people.  Having  denied 
to  the  Presbyterian  Denomination,  as  such,  her  right  to  be 
called  "  a  Chiuxh  "—that  is,  having  denied  the  root  princi- 
ple of  Presbyterianism,  the  right  of  one  ecclesiastical  rule 
over  a  plurality  of  Congregations  organically  bound  under 
that  rule,  and  having,  by  consequence,  denied  the  right  of 
all  courts  built  upon  that  rule,  and  again,  by  consequence, 
the  right  of  this  Presbytery  to  say  whether  he  shall  accept 
a  call  or  not,  and  be  re-examined  and  installed  or  not,  and 
whether  he  may  belong  to  the  new  Anti-Denominational 
Association  or  not,  he  has  flung  his  Presbyterianism  to  the 
winds,  thrown  our  authority  back  in  our  faces,  and  chosen 
Independenc}^  as  his  polity.  All  this  he  has  done,  yet 
claiming  his  right  to  remain  on  the  roll  of  this  Presbytery 
for  "indorsement"  and  "good  standing."  There  is  a 
bravery  in  all  this,  which  could  only  be  developed  where  a 
corresponding  undervaluation  or  neglect  by  Presbyterians 
themselves  exists  in  reference  to  their  own  Government 
and  Discipline.  The  course  of  Mr.  McCune  is  utterly  un- 
accountable on  any  other  hypothesis.  He  is,  and  has  been, 
for  years,  an  actual  and  active  member  of  the  new  Associa- 
tion of  Independent  Union  Christian  Ministers  and  Churches 
in  America.  It  is  thus  he  has  felt  at  perfect  liberty,  un- 
challenged, "  unquestioned,"  while  a  member  of  this  body, 
to  carry  on  a  crusade,  even  in  its  own  bosom,  and  in  the 
bounds  of  the  Synod,  as  in  the  bounds  of  the  neighboring 
Synod  of  Kentucky,  against  the  doctrines  and  polity  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  Moderator,  it  is  not  true  "  there  is  not 
much  harm  in  all  this."  It  is  disloyalty  to  the  Church,  whose 
Standards  of  doctrine  and  order  he  has  sworn  to  support,  if 
his  vows  were  not  a  mental  reservation,  '■^Juravi  lingua, 
mentem  injuratam  gero  ! " 

And  now,  Moderator,  what  avails  it  that  Mr.  McCune, 
only  three  days  before  this  Court  assembled,  appears  again, 
in  public  print  four  columns  long.  Commercial,  December 


[  138  ] 

30,  1876,  to  plead  his  case  before  the  public,  and,  by  desper- 
ate effort,  seek  to  produce  the  impression,  in  advance,  that  he 
belongs  to  no  anti-denoniinational  association  at  all  ?  that 
neither  he  nor  the  signers  of  the  new  Anti-Denominational 
"  Basis  of  Union  "  are  members  of  a  distinct  Association,  de- 
signed to  be  permanent,  with  independent  jurisdiction,  under 
rules  and  laws  and  a  creed  and  polity  of  their  own  construc- 
tion and  adoption  ?  What  avails  it  to  say  now,  as  judicial 
traverse  comes  on,  that  the  "  Basis  of  Union"  was  only  a 
"  tentative  "  platform  for  transient  annual  meetings,  like 
Sunday  School  or  Temperance  Conventions,  and  nothing 
more  was  meant  ?  Was,  then,  Mr.  McCune's  paper  edited 
only  for  the  sake  of  a  Convention  ?  Was  his  missionary 
propagandism  in  behalf  of  Organic  Union,  upon  such  prin- 
ciples as  he  advocated,  only  for  the  sake  of  a  Convention? 
Sir,  the  apology  is  too  thin,  the  disguise  "  too  gauzy  !"  The 
"  Basis  of  Union  "  is  a  Basis  of  church-fellowship,  upon 
a  special  creed,  upon  a  special  polity,  and  for  a  special  end, 
the  reorganization  of  the  whole  Church  of  Christ,  as  the 
sounding  language  goes  on.  But  now  a  metamorphosis 
occurs.  Ovid  tells  us  of  Callisto  changed  to  a  bear,  Ac- 
taeon  to  a  stag,  Jupiter  to  the  form  of  Diana,  and  the  sis- 
ters of  Phaethon  to  weeping  trees.  Bossuet  changes  the 
dragon  to  a  "  milk-white  hind  !"  Mr.  McCune  changes  a 
Denomination  to  a  "  Convention,"  "  a  mere  Convention  !" 
Well,  Sir,  allow  me  to  ask,  when  the  Convention  adjourns, 
where  do  the  "Union  Ministers  and  Churches"  belong? 
Where  is  the  "  Union  ?"  The  Convention  is  expressly 
called  "  a  Convention  of  the  Union  Christian  Churches." 
There  is  an  organization  behind  the  Convention,  and  of 
which  the  Convention  is  a  representative  by  "  delegation" 
from  the  "  Union."  It  is  a  vain  excuse.  In  that  Union 
Association,  banded  together  upon  its  distinctive  "  Basis  of 
Union"  are  two  classes  of  ministers  and  members ;  those 
who  have  already  severed  their  previous  denominational 
relations,  and  those  who  "  do  not  deem  it  expedient  to 
sever  existing  denominational  relations."  Where,  Moder- 
ator, when  the  Convention  adjourns,  do  those  who  have 
severed  their  previous   denominational   relations  belong  ? 


[139] 

They  belong  where  Mr.  McCnne  and  the  others  who  have 
not  so  done  belong;  they  belong  to  the  new  Association 
of  "Union  Christian  Churches  and  Ministers,"  into  whose 
Organic  Union  bosom  all  the  delegates  retire  upon  adjourn- 
ment. They  are  under  the  didio  juris  of  that  Association, 
i.  e.,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  its  creed,  laws,  polity,  aim, 
and  counsel.  They  have  one  jurisdiction  in  their  Organic 
Church-fellowship.  Mr.  McCune  has  tivo,  distinct  and 
conflicting,  a  distinct  "  membership,"  a  distinct  "Church- 
fellowship."  The  organization  is  expressly  said  to  be  ef- 
fected by  "  adoption  "  of  a  written  "  Basis  of  Union  "  and 
"  enrollment"  as  members,  the  way  in  which  every  human 
organization  is  effected.  Its  ^^  initial  step  "  is  expressly  de- 
clared to  be  (1)  the  mutual  voluntary  reception  of  "  each 
other,"  the  first  foundation,  and  (2)  the  reception  of  others. 
Is  it  only  a  Convention,  with  no  Organic  Union  behind  it 
of  any  Cliristian  ministers,  that  presumes  to  posit  a  creed, 
a  polity,  and  terms  of  admission  into  the  visible  Church? 
Is  it  a  Convention  that  says,  "  We  require  no  assent  to  any 
denominational  peculiarity  as  a  bond  of  fellowship  f  And 
that  '•'•we  will  receive  every  Christian  into  our  fellowship  y 
and  every  Christian  minister  who  teaches  the  couimon 
faith  of  the  gospel."  Who  are  the  "We  and  Oiirf  Are 
they  "  delegates  "  simply  to  a  Convention  from  no  Associ- 
ation? "  Fellowship  "  of  what?  Is  it  "  fellowship "  of  a 
"  Convention  "  whose  members,  after  all,  are  not  delegates? 
Is  the  "  attempt  to  induce  Christians  to  unite  on  the  basis 
of  their  agreements  "  only  an  attempt  to  hold  a  Conven- 
tion ?  Is  the  boasted  Organic  Union,  after  all,  only  the 
dissolving  feature  of  an  annual  "  Convention  ?"  What, 
then,  meant  the  cry,  "We  must  organize;  organize!  Band 
ourselves  together  as  ministers  and  Churches!"  The  des- 
perate pleading  of  Mr.  McCune  only  establishes  with  in- 
vincible demonstration  the  fact  the  prosecution  assert  and 
prove,  that  he  is,  by  his  own  act,  a  member  of  a  new  Or- 
ganic Union  Church  organization,  whose  purpose  is  the  de- 
struction of  denominations,  as  such,  and  the  reconstruc- 
tion of  the  whole  Church  on  a  New  Te.stament  Basis.  The 
prosecution  submit  that  the  proof  is  redundant  to  sustaia 


[140] 

the  specification  before  any  Court  in  the  world,  that  Mr. 
McCuue  ha6  iiclvocated  and  promoted  the  new  anti-denom- 
inational association  of  independent  "Union  Christian 
Churches  of  America,"  of  which  he  is  a  member,  precisely 
as  the  specification  sets  forth — a  movement  utterly  antag- 
onistic in  its  principles  to  the  Standards  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  Mr.  McCune  has  vowed  to  support. 

The  prosecution  will  not  dwell  on  all  the  law  points.  They 
have  ah^eady  been  quoted.  The  reference  Digest,  p.  304  (8), 
expressly  forbids  such  conduct.  The  reference,  p.  44  (II.  V), 
asserts  the  right  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  have  her 
own  distinctive  terms  of  communion,  and  her  own  polity, 
without  subjection  to  a  crusade  against  them  by  her  own 
ministers.  The  references,  pp.  411,  399,  exhibit  the  vows 
of  Mr.  McCune  to  maintain  the  Standards,  the  truths,  of 
the  Gospel,  and  study  the  peace,  unity,  and  purity  of  the 
church.  The  reference,  p.  55  (6),  requires  him  "to  teach 
and  preach  according  to  the  form  of  sound  words  in  our 
confession  and  catechisms,  and  avoid  and  oppose  all  error 
contrary  thereto,"  which  he  has  not  done  in  this  new 
movement.  The  reference,  Baird's  Digest,  p.  626,  disquali- 
fies from  ministerial  fellowship  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
the  man  who  is  ^^ confirmed  and,  resolute  in  'pro'pagating  his 
(erroneous)  opinions  among  the  people  by  a  variety  of  methods, 
to  the  great  scandal  of  the  church,  seducing  and  perplexing" 
the  unwary  and  unstable,"  departing  from  the  truth  and 
opposing  his  church.  The  reference,  p.  630,  Baird's  Digest, 
expresses  the  pain  of  the  General  Assembly  "  that  novel 
opinions,  or  at  least  opinions  presented  in  a  novel  dress  and 
appearance,  have  been  openly  and  extensively  circulated,  and 
excited  unusual  alarm,  while  at  the  same  time  they  have 
given  rise  to  much  contention ;"  and  takes  occasion  to  declare 
its  "  uniform  adherence  to  the  doctrines  contained  in  our 
Confession  of  Faith,  in  their  plain  and  intelligible  form, 
and  its  own  firm  determination  to  maintain  them  against 
all  innovations,"  earnestly  entreating  that  "nothing  sub- 
versive of  these  doctrines  may  he  suffered  to  exist  or  to  be  cir- 
culated amongst  the  churches."  IsTeither  ministry.  Presbytery, 
or  Synod  may  indulge  such  license,  or  be  guilty  of  such 


[141] 

departure  from  our  denominational  law,  and  no  minister 
may  plead  in  justification  of  his  course  the  transgression 
of  any  of  the  courts  of  the  church,  or  encouragement  by 
any  of  their  members.  The  reference,  p.  638,  bids  us 
"consider  the  pernicious  tendency  of  the  present  disorgan- 
izing 'plan  "  of  those  who,  under  the  specious  pretense  of 
honoring  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  would  persuade  you  to  '■'■re- 
ject all  loritten  or  printed  creeds  and  forms  of  discipline,"  and 
whose  polity  is  that  "Christians  have  no  power  over  one 
another  to  ct(<  off,  or  exclude,  or  unite.^'  It  is  the  scheme  of 
Mr.  McCune  drawn  to  the  life  and  condemned.  The  refer- 
ence, p.  648,  delivers  the  unambiguous  judgment  of  the  as- 
sembly that  the  propagation  of  such  doctrines  "  ought  to 
subject  the  person  or  persons  so  doing,  to  be  dealt  with  by 
their  respective  Presbyteries  according  to  the  discipline  of  the 
church  relative  to  the  propagation  of  errors,"  especially,  p. 
651  (77),  if  either  he  or  they  "  manifest  a  lofty  mind  and 
independent  spirit  that  will  not  be  controlled  by  authority." 
It  is  not  possible,  Moderator,  for  our  church  more  thor- 
oughly to  condemn  the  course  of  Mr.  McCune,  nor  is  it 
possible  for  him  more  thoroughly  to  set  at  naught  the 
Standards,  or  renounce  the  vows  that  bind  him  to  subjec- 
tion, and  the  study  of  the  church's  peace,  unity,  and  purity. 
Such  conduct  generally  allowed  would  be  subversive  of  the 
constitution  of  the  church,  and  destructive  of  its  very  ex- 
istence.    I  pass  to  the  second  specification. 

SPECIFICATION  II. 

Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout. 

This  specification  unfolds  for  us  the  next  important  fact 
in  the  progress  of  organic  union  in  our  midst.  It  was  not 
enough  for  Mr.  McCune  that  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati,  in 
1870,  should  authorize  his  peculiar  views  and  princijiles  to 
be  circulated  throughout  its  bounds,  nor  that  its  [lulpits 
should  welcome  their  advocacy  before  the  people,  nor  that 
Mr.  McCune  should  be  enrolled  as  a  member  of  the  new  de- 
nomination. A  particular,  visible  incorporation  of  differing 
ecclesiastical  views  and  differing  doctrinal  beliefs  must  be 


[142] 

experimented  into  organic  oneness  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cincinnati.  Undismissed  members  who  be- 
longed to  five  different  denominations  must  unite  under  Mr. 
McCune's  lead  in  a  new  organization,  on  Mr.  McCune's  Or- 
ganic Union  Basis,  prepared  by  him  for  their  adoption.  The 
new  organization  is  effected.  The  fiveness  becomes  extinct 
in  the  oneness,  and  the  oneness  emerges  by  organic  evolution 
from  the  fiveness.  The  unity  in  which  the  flock  dwells,  is 
not  an  inward  unity,  for  "local  convenience,"  upon  a  mi7ii- 
mum  quid  examination.  It  matters  not,  at  any  time,  whether 
suppliants  for  entrance  can  bring  certificates,  or  whether 
they  do  not  believe  the  Bible  infallible,  or  Christ  properly 
human.  If  they  have  "Saving  Faith"  without  this,  all 
well.  The  undismissed  members  go  in  "  on  profession." 
With  most  of  them  we  have  nothing  to  do.  It  is  "  outside 
our  jurisdiction  "  as  rulers  in  the  house  of  God.  It  is  with 
Mr.  McCune,  in  this  movement,  we  are  concerned.  The 
more  we  contemplate  the  movement,  as  it  took  shape  under 
his  hands,  the  more  our  wonder  is  challenged.  It  is  a  the- 
ological seminary  and  asylum.  It  trains  and  examines 
"  candidates  for  the  ministry."  Specification  V,  Proof  4.  It 
receives  "  all  Christians,"  and  all  "  ministers"  too.  (Ibid.) 
It  is  liberal  moreover.  A  candidate  for  the  sacred  office  is 
not  required  to  explain  "  the  sense  in  which  he  receives 
every  verse  of  Scripture  from  the  beginning  of  the  Bible  to  the 
end  of  it."  The  exercise  would  be  too  long.  Few  would 
take  orders  at  this  rate !  It  is  presumable,  however,  that 
those  who  do,  like  Ezra,  the  scribe  of  old,  ^^ give  the  sense" 
on  the  few  texts  submitted  to  their  consideration,  give  it  so 
as  not  to  get  outside  the  limits  of  the  "  common  faith,"  i.  e., 
outside  the  points  on  which  all  agree  as  to  personal  salva- 
tion, while  differing  on  everything  else.  ISTothing  more  is 
needed.  Theology  is  a  dry  subject.  The  day  of"  dogma" 
is  gone.  The  hour  of  Organic  Union  has  come.  There  is 
a  slight  departure  here,  a  little  inconsistent  with  the  anti- 
creed  rule  that  no  "  human  deductions  "  are  allowable,  and 
that  all  that  is  needed  is  assent  to  words  "  expressed  in  God's 
own  language"  as  that  language  is  "  commonly  received." 
The  new  organization  informs  us  that  it  is  actually  "about 


[143] 

to  send  out  into  the  world  "  on  a  few  well  selected  texts,  or 
on  the  Basis  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  either,  the  candi- 
date ma}"^  choose  which,  "  those  who  are  to  preach  the  ever- 
lasting gospel,"  i.  e.,  the  "  common  faith  "  as  defined.  It  is 
evidently  a  parent  society,  though  an  infant  yet!  Mr. 
McCune's  five  in  one  have  swept  the  whole  compass  of  de- 
nominational activities,  and  gathered  all  the  functions  into 
unity.  The  whole  "  General  Association"  is  mirrored  in 
microcosm  at  Mt.  Lookout.  As  to  its  ofiicers,  its  polity 
speaks  on  this  wise,  that  any  one  of  them  can  be  hopelessly 
turned  out  of  office,  without  appeal,  by  a  simple  "request" 
of  a  "majority  of  the  members  voting  at  a  meeting,  duly 
called  Jor  that  purpose."  This  is  one  of  the  "  Regulations 
of  Expediency."  As  to  discipline,  the  whole  body  simply 
"  withdraw  "  from  an  offender.  See  Specification  V,  Proof 
4.  That  Mr.  McCune  is  the  veritable  father  of  this  Linwood 
and  Mt.  Lookout  "  Union  Christian  Church,''  the  preparer 
and  publisher  of  its  Declaration,  Preliminary  Statements, 
Basis  of  Fellowship,  and  Regulations  of  Expediency,  that 
lie  "  actively  co-operated  in  organizing  it,"  "  desired  "  to 
organize  it,  and  "  agreed  with  others  "  to  organize  it,  and 
for  the  expressly  avowed  purpose  of  putting  into  'practical  em- 
bodiment his  Organic  Union  Principles,  and  that  this  was 
what  he  meant,  among  other  things,  in  his  editorial  of  Aug. 
1,  1875,  three  mouths  only  before  the  organization,  saying 
he  had  "fixed  aims  and  purposes,"  and  what  his  co-editor 
meant,  among  other  things,  saying  same  date,  "we  must 
organize,  hand  ourselves  together  as  ministers  and  churches, 
Let  the  work  of  organization  go  on !"  and  what  the  rebuke 
to  Mr.  Thrall  meant,  same  date  (Specification  Y,  Proof  6), 
will,  I  think,  become  evident  to  the  Court.  Its  Declar- 
ation and  Regulations  of  Expediency  all  flowed  from  the 
ink  of  Mr.  McCune's  pen.  If  the  preparation  of  these 
by  Mr.  McCune  is  denied,  the  prosecution  will  introduce 
and  submit  additional  testimony,  which,  however,  they 
prefer  not  to  submit  unless  by  necessity.  The  Linwood 
and  Mt.  Lookout  Manual  was  sent  to  many  members  of 
Presbytery  previous  to  the  installation  of  Mr.  McCune, 
It  is  here  upon  your  table.     It  needs  no  signature.     It  is 


[144] 

one  large  signature  itself.  "  Dr.  Skinner,"  says  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune,  January  12,  1876,  six  weeks  after  the  organization, 
"  seems  to  make  a  painfully  elaborate  effort  to  prove,  by 
some  rather  confusing  quotations,  that  the  Church  of  Lin- 
wood  and  Mt.  Lookout  is  responsible  for  the  publication  of 
the  Declaration  and  Freliminary  Statements  which  accom- 
pany the  Basis  of  Fellowship  of  the  Union  Christian  Church 
of  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout.  Certainly ;  who  ever 
thought  otherwise  ?  His  ulterior  object  seems  to  be  to  make 
me  also  responsible.  I  will  gladly  relieve  him  of  any  further 
trouble  in  this  direction.  I  hereby  declare  that  I  heartily 
approve  of  the  Declaration  and  Preliminary  Statements  ac- 
companying the  Basis  of  Fellowship  of  the  Union  Christian 
Church  of  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  and  respectfully 
commend  them  to  the  attention  of  the  Christian  public."  I 
am  sure  every  court  would  decide,  especially  a  moral  court, 
these  words  to  be  a  veritable  evidence  of  the  Authorship  of 
the  Manual.  The  Prosecution  is  relieved  of  any  doubt  what- 
ever. If  the  court,  however,  is  not  satisfied,  we  will  intro- 
duce what  will  remove  any  doubt  at  once.  Proof  4,  Speci- 
fication V,  Charge  I,  reads  thus:  "We,  giving  to  each  other 
evidence  that  we*  are  Christ's  disciples,  'propose,  by  the  help 
of  God,  to  organize  a  \Union  Christian  Church,'  in  accord- 
ance with  the  precepts  and  examples  of  the  l^ew  Testa- 
ment." "  We  will,  on  scriptural  evidence,  cordially  receive 
all  Christians  into  this  Church."  "  We  will  receive  as 
ministers  all  who  give  us  scriptural  evidence  that  they  are 
in  fact  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  etc."  "  We  will ; 
we  will ;  we  deem,  etc."  What  can  be  plainer  from  all  these 
utterances  than  that  Mr.  McCune  did  thoroughly  identify 
himself  with  those  who  proposed  to  form  a  new  church, 
and  was  as  truly  one  of  their  number  in  this  whole  work 
as  any  other  person  in  that  number  ?  He  himself  is  one  of 
the  "  we  "  who  propose  to  do  this  thing,  and  the  attempt  to 
evade  this  identification  b}^  pleading  that  he  did  not 
organize  the  Church  is  utterly  vain.  If  the  "  we  "  organized 
it,  then  he  also  organized  it,  for  he  was  one  of  the  "  we." 
The  installation  over,  and  the  charge  being  made  that  be- 
cause  no  elders  had  been  ordained,  the  society  had  no 


[145] 

ordained  officers  of  its  own,  Mr.  McCune  exclaims,  "  Does 
he  deny  that  I  am  an  officer,  then,  or  does  he  deny  my 
ordination  ?  which  ?"  Proof  2,  Specification  II,  Charge  11. 
Our  ordination  of  Mr.  McCune  does  not  make  him  an  officer 
in  that  church.  Installation  over  an  Independent  or  Con- 
gregational Church  does  make  him  an  officer  in  that 
church,  and  does  bind  him  to  the  administration^  of  law 
and  order  in  the  house  of  God  according  to  the  special  rules 
of  that  congregation.  He  is  himself  under  those  rules,  not 
above  them.  He  is  a  de  facto  member  of  the  Church  itself. 
In  a  congregation  organized  from  five  diflferent  denomina- 
tions, by  the  agency  of  a  Presbyterian  minister,  expressly 
throwing  the  Westminster  Standards  overboard,  as  the  whole 
Congregational  Body  in  this  country  had  now  done,  and  de- 
nouncing all  human-made  creeds,  and  the  enforcement  of 
denominational  laws  and  enactments  as  essentially  sinful,  and 
even  dispensing  with  one  or  both  of  the  sacraments,  if  any 
object  to  receive  them,  mere  danger  has  already  passed  into 
open  destruction  of  the  truth  and  order  of  Christ's  House. 
To  plead  historic  congregational  "usage"  here,  is  to  plead 
a  nonentity.  In  1871,  in  National  Ecumenical  Council  at 
Oberlin,  Ohio,  the  witness,  Mr.  Halley,  tells  us  that  con- 
gregational historic  usage  was  thrown  to  the  winds  with 
the  Westminster  Standards  for  the  sake  of  a  "  new  depar- 
ture "  in  the  interest  of  the  Oberlin  platform  of  liberalism 
that  would  receive,  tolerate  and  fellowship  the  Lin  wood  and 
Mt.  Lookout  Church,  just  as  it  is,  with  all  its  enormities. 
To  such  a  church  as  this,  organized  on  such  a  foundation, 
by  Mr.  McCune  and  others,  Mr.  McCune  has  joined  himself. 
Repelling  the  charge,  made  by  myself,  that  the  spiritual 
government  of  the  Church  was  in  the  hands  of  unordained 
committee-men,  and  that  the  Church  had  no  ordained 
officers,  and  was,  therefore,  not  scripturally  organized,  he 
exclaims,  as  I  have  said,  "  Does  he  deny  that  I  am  an 
officer  then,  or  does  he  deny  my  ordination  ?"  The  question 
was  not  whether  Mr.  McCune  was  ordained,  but  whether 
that  particular  society  had  of  itself,  and  claiming  as  its  own, 
any  ordained  "  officers  "  of  the  body.  Mr.  McCune  comes 
forward,  therefore,  upon  the  fact  of  his  installation,  to  affirm 


[146] 

the  further  fact  that  he  is  an  "officer"  of  that  particular 
society  as  well  as  an  "  officer"  in  his  own.  He  is  subject  to 
its  creed,  laws,  polity,  and  aim,  such  as  they  have  been 
voted  to  be,  and  such  as  he  specially  prepared  for  the  new 
"  Christian  Union  Church  at  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout." 
He  is  under  that  "  dictio  juris^'  of  that  vote  of  adoption  by 
that  society.  He  is  bound  by  it,  and  must  conform  to  it. 
He  made  the  whole  thing  himself. 

Proof  3  shows  the  time  claimed  for  the  so-called  organiza- 
tion, and  the  distinctive  title  of  the  new  society,  as  given 
above.  The  month  of  November,  1875,  is  the  general  date. 
The  7th,  8th,  10th  and  24th  are  testified  to  as  the  special  dates, 
by  the  Herald  and  Presbyter,  the  Presbytery's  Investigating 
Committee,  and  a  member  of  the  organization  whose  testi- 
mony is  given  in  the  Presbyterian.  It  is  expressly  stated  in 
that  testimony,  that  although  Mr.  McCune  was  not  a 
pastor,  at  that  time,  i.  e.  not  acting  "  officially,"  yet  he  was 
present  at  the  so-called  organization  "desiring"  that  just 
fluch  an  organization  as  it  is,  on  precisely  such  a  Basis  as 
he  made  for  it,  "  might  be  effected."  How  strong  that 
desire  was,  and  with  what  aims,  we  all  know.  Furthermore, 
upon  his  own  confession,  he  was  laboring  a  whole  "year" 
among  the  people  before  the  so-called  organization  took 
place,  a  people  who  were  of  various  denominations,  and  who, 
for  some  time,  had  been  holding  union  services,  in  the  ordi- 
nary way,  in  such  cases.  It  was  a  grand,  a  favorable  oppor- 
tunity, under  the  plea  of  uniting  merely  for  "local  conveni- 
ence," to  now  venture  the  experiment  of  an  "  Organic  Union 
Christian  Church,"  on  an  anti-denominational  Basis.  It  was 
"mutually  agreed,"  he  tells  us,  himself,"  that  we  would  look 
toward  the  organization  of  a  Union  Church."  So  much  the 
worse  if  such  a  Church,  on  such  a  Basis,  was  the  meditation  of 
hiamind  for  a  whole  "year"  before  the  so-called  organiza- 
tion took  place.  Utterly  beside  the  question  it  is,  if  he  means 
to  say,  it  was  some  other  kind  of  "  Union  Church  "  than  the 
one  that  finally  emerged.  Utterly  beside  the  question,  if 
he  means  to  say  that  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  people 
are  chargeable  with  the  dangerous  views  and  principles 
into  which  he  indoctrinated  them,  or  whether  he  inocu- 


[  147  ] 

lated  them,  or  they  inoculated  him.  It  is  of  no  sort  of  con- 
sequence to, this  Presbytery,  in  this  case,  how  many  or  how 
few  worked  up  the  movement  with  Mr.  McCune.  He  is 
the  preparer  and  the  author  of  its  Declaration  and  its 
Creed,  its  Basis  and  its  Polity.  He  has  been  trying  to  do 
for  Ohio  what  some  others  did  for  Virginia  and  North 
Carolina — organize  a  Christian  Church  for  himself,  on  his 
own  plan,  and  call  it  Apostolic  !  He  says  "  I  ajjproved  the 
movement,"  as  though  he  were  a  bystander  looking  on  and 
giving  his  opinion !  He  did  more  than  approve  it.  He 
says  "  I  counseled  it,"  as  though  his  advice  had  simply  been 
sought.  He  did  more  than  "  counsel  it."  He  says,  "  I  co- 
operated with  those  who  did  organize  this  church,"  as  though 
he  did  not  organize  it  himself.  This  is  his  manner  of  state- 
ment. Moderator,  he  did  more  than  "  co-operate  "  in  the 
organization.  He  "  operated  "  the  organization  itself,  if  any 
organization  took  place  before  the  Council  met.  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune devised  and  projected  the  whole  movement  from  be- 
ginning to  end,  in  the  shape  it  took.  He  molded  it  to  his 
will.  He  organized  it  himself,  as  truly  as,  and  more  truly 
than  ever  did  any  committee  of  Presbytery  organize  any 
church  within  our  bounds,  if  it  ever  was  organized  before 
the  Council  met.  The  people  who  ivere  organized  into  the 
organization  did  not  organize  it.  The  material  molded 
into  shape  is  not  the  molder.  The  original  constituent  ele- 
ments out  of  which  a  thing  is  composed  is  not  the  plastic 
hand  that  imposes  the  form.  I^o,  sir.  This  ecclesiastical 
protoplasm  is  the  work  of  Mr.  McCune  alone  as  the  sole 
Organizer  of  the  Organic  Union  Church  of  Linwood  and 
Mt.  Lookout,  if  it  was  organized  at  all  before  the  Council 
met.  He  told  us,  August  1, 1875,  only  three  months  before, 
that  he  meant  work,  he  meant  business !  And  he  has  kept 
his  word.  Mt.  Lookout  answered  to  the  call  of  Suffolk, 
"  Organize!"  Listen  to  the  testimony  of  an  officer  of  the 
Congregation  (Proof  3) :  "  Mr.  McCune  acted  merely  in  the 
capacity  of  a  Christian,  desiring  that  such  organization 
might  be  effected,  his  position  only  giving  him  somewhat 
greater  prominence  in  the  matter  than  any  other  brethren." 
Oh,  Mr.  Moderator,  it  is  a  vain  excuse,  this  word  "  merely" 


.      [  148  ] 

this  word  '•'■  only^^  this  word  ^^  somewhat.'^  And  is  the  po- 
sition of  a  Presbyterian  minister  of  twenty  years'  standing, 
one  who  claims  as  an  ambassador  of  Christ,  by  virtue  of 
Christ's  call  to  him,  to  bear  rule  in  His  house,  only  '■'-some- 
what^' greater  than  that  of  unorganized  individuals? 
^'■Somewhat''  more  "prominent!"  Moderator  and  breth- 
ren, Mr,  McCune  is  the  creator  of  that  organization  such 
as  it  was.  It  is  his  workmanship,  absolutely,  so  far  as  its 
ecclesiastical  creed  and  form  are  concerned.  It  is  the  le- 
gitimate outgrowth  of  his  Organic  Union  principles,  the 
fruit  of  Organic  Union  Seed,  planted  a  "year"  before,  his 
outstanding  and  embodied  "project,"  "scheme,"  and 
"  aim,"  the  realization  of  his  ardent  hopes  after  long  years 
of  zealous  advocacy  and  toil.  It  is  the  body  of  which  Mr. 
McCune  is  the  head,  and  it  stands  to-day,  the  creation  of  a 
member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  upon  principles 
destructive  of  his  own  and  all  other  evangelical  denomi- 
nations. Mr.  McCune's  friends  may  seek  to  provide  a 
shelter  for  his  responsibility,  by  denying  to  this  Presbytery, 
upon  its  Committee's  request,  the  courtesy  of  the  inspection 
of  the  records  of  their  so-called  organization,  but  that  one 
fact  will  shine,  in  the  trial  of  this  case,  as  a  demonstration, 
clear  and  convincing,  that  the  Organic  Union  movement 
"  co-operates "  with  ministers  in  disrespect  of  their  own 
denominational  laws  and  organic  enactments,  and  secretes 
the  evidence  from  the  Court  to  which  their  pastors  belong. 
That  one  act  of  refusing  a  courtesy,  shall  I  not  say  a  moral 
right,  which  no  so-called  "  Sectarian  "  denomination  would 
refuse  to  another,  is  sufficient  ground  for  this  Presbytery's 
order  to  Mr.  McCune  to  cease  his  labors  at  that  place. 
Were  a  foreign  government  to  so  act  toward  the  United 
States,  in  the  case  of  a  civil  minister,  recalled  to  answer  for 
transgression  of  the  Constitution  and  laws,  we  know  what 
the  result  would  be.  Such  is  the  beauty  of  two  jurisdic- 
tions, one.  for  the  pastor,  another  for  the  church !  But  the 
evidence  is  ample.  And,  as  a  Presbyterian  minister,  I 
solemnly  aver,  that  no  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
has  any  right  to,  either  create,  operate,  co-operate,  counsel, 
approve,  or  even  lend  his  countenance  for  any  plea,  under 


[149] 

any  consideration  of  any  kind,  to  the  organization  or  rec- 
ognition of  a  church  built  on  the  principles  Mr.  McCune 
devised  for  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Society. 

The  Specification  alleges  that,  Mr.  McCune  having  "  co- 
operated" in  this  so-called  organization,  accepted  a  "call" 
to  become  its  pastor,  was  examined,  and  installed  by  an  ir- 
responsible, because  undelegated  "  Council,"  loithout  leave  of, 
or  dismission  from  Ms  Presbytery,  and  against  advice,  and  is, 
at  present,  the  pastor  of  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout 
Church.  The  evidence  of  the  acceptance  of  the  call  is 
taken  from  collaterals  JNos.  3  and  4  of  the  Investigating 
Committee's  Report,  No.  3  being  the  statement  of  certain 
members  of  the  "  Council"  that  installed  Mr.  McCune,  and 
from  JSTo.  4,  being  the  statement  of  Mr.  McCune  himself, 
both  afhrraing  the  fact.  The  evidence  of  the  examination 
and  installation  of  Mr.  McCune  by  an  irresponsible,  be- 
cause undelegated  Council,  is  taken  from  collateral  JSTo.  3, 
being  the  statement  of  four  out  of  "  ten  ministers  connected 
with  four  evangelical  denominations,"  also  from  the  account 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  installation  service,  published 
December  17,  1875,  in  the  Cincinnati  Gazette.  The  evi- 
dence that  all  this  w^as  done  without  leave  of,  or  dismission 
from  the  Presbytery  is  taken  from  collateral  No.  4,  found 
in  Mr.  McCune's  own  words  :  "  If  there  is  any  Presbyterian 
law  requiring  a  minister  to  first  gain  the  consent  of  his  Fres- 
bytery,  before  accepting  a  pastorate  outside  of  Presbyterian 
jurisdiction,  I  have  no  knowledge  of  it."  "  If  there  is  such 
a  law,"  he  says^  "  I  will  plead  ignorance  and  indifference  ! " 
Proof  5.  The  evidence,  like  most  of  it  already  furnished, 
is  unnecessary,  for  the  facts  are  officially  before  this  Court 
already.  The  public  indorsement  hy  the  Council  of  Mr. 
McCune,  as  "an  intelligent  and  thoughtful  expositor  of  the 
Scripture,  and  a  reliable  teacher  on  all  vital  points  of  doctrine,'' 
is  also  given,  together  with  notice  of  his  installation,  ac- 
cording to  the  programme  of  the  Council.  The  advice 
given  to  Mr.  McCune  was  advice  given  by  myself  in  the 
letter  which  I  addressed  to  Mr.  McCune,  upon  receipt  of  his 
invitation,  or  the  published  invitation  of  the  Committeemen 
of  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  to  be  present  and  give  sane- 


[150] 

tion  and  encouragement  to  the  undertaking.  The  evidence 
that  Mr.  McCune  is  pastor,  at  present,  of  the  Linwood  and 
Mt.  Lookout  Church,  is  referred  to  as  upon  record  in  the 
Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly,  put  there  by  order  of  the 
Presbytery,  and  also  to  the  Records  of  the  Presbytery  at 
Mt.  Auburn,  September  13, 1876,  then  inserting  the  omitted 
order  of  Mr.  McCune's  enrollment  as  "Pastor"  on  the  sta- 
tistical report  of  the  clerk,  April  13, 1876,  at  Glendale,  to  the 
then  oncoming  General  Assembly,  thereby  giving  official 
sanction  to  the  installation  of  Mr.  McCune  by  said  Council, 
and  to  his  present  pastoral  relation. 

But,  Moderator,  before  passing  to  the  law  of  our  church 
condemning  this  whole  procedure  of  Mr.  McCune,  I  must 
refer  to  the  attempt  of  the  defendant  to  shelter  himself 
under  the  wing  of  Congregationalism,  which,  at  Oberlin, 
Ohio,  in  1871,  abandoned  the  Westminster  Standards  in 
order  to  make  room  for  just  such  doctrinal  organizations 
as  that  of  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout.  This  we  have  had 
in  express  terms  in  the  testimony  before  us  from  the  de- 
fense. It  is  true,  and  can  not  be  denied,  that  in  the  pre- 
amble to  the  resolution  of  the  council,  the  church  of  Lin- 
wood and  Mt.  Lookout  is  carefully  and  precisely  announced 
to  the  world  as  an  "  undenominational"  church,  and  there- 
fore not  Congregational.  It  is  true  that  Mr.  Melish  has 
testified  that  the  Congregational  body  is  a  "  sect,"  a  "  di- 
vision" or  "  separation"  from  the  "  Body  of  Christ,"  one, 
among  others,  causing  "  an  essentially  sinful  state  of  things." 
It  is  true  that  Mr.  McCune  himself  is  a  member  of  another 
of  these  "sinful  denominational  divisions"  and  insists  on 
standing  upon  its  roll ;  but  all  this  matters  not  in  the  des- 
perate emergencies  and  exigencies  of  the  defendant.  If 
he  can  only  show  that  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout 
church  is  what  it  is  not,  a  Congregational  church,  a  "sect," 
an  "  antiscriptural  and  sinful"  separation  from  the  "Body 
of  Christ,"  he  thinks  he  has  saved  his  cause  and  can  escape 
the  charge  that  he  is  opposed  to  denominations,  as  such.  I 
therefore  occupy  a  little  time  in  considering  the  Congrega- 
.  tional  mode  of  organizing  a  church. 

This  mode  is  based   upon  the  fundamental  principle  of 


[  151  ] 

Congregationalism,  which  differences  it  from  bald  Inde- 
pendency. That  principle  is,  ecclesiastical  affiliation,  fra- 
ternity, and  fellowship,  not  merely  spiritual  or  moral.  No 
individual  church  is  a  Congregational  church.  It  stands 
alone,  a  pure  and  absolute  separatist,  without  any  church 
fellowship  whatever.  The  word  Congregationalism  does 
not  mean  the  association  of  individual  members  in  any 
particular  church.  It  means  the  ecclesiastical  affiliation 
and  association  of  many  similarly  organized  churches  by 
means  of  a  council  common  to  all.  The  word  Congrega- 
tional relates  to  the  fact  of  a  number  of  congregations  in 
ecclesiastical  fellowship.  Congregational  churches  are 
congregated,  "  affiliated  and  fraternized"  churches,  not 
merely  Independent.  Dexter  on  Congregationalism,  p.  344. 
Now,  their  whole  law  of  organization  is  based  on  this 
principle,  and  no  churches  are  lawfully  organized  Congre- 
gational churches  that  are  destitute  of  this  formal  asso- 
ciation. The  assertion  of  this  principle  necessitates  the 
following  things  as  essential  to  a  regularly  organized  Con- 
gregational church  :  1.  There  can  be  no  such  church  apart 
from  a  regularly  organized  council ;  2.  There  can  be  no 
regularly  organized  council  apart  from  direct  authority 
delegated  from  affiliated  churches;  3.  A  regular  church 
organization  is  effected  by,  with,  and  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  a  regularly  delegated  council  only,  whether 
that  council  consists  of  pastors  alone,  or  of  pastors  and 
laymen.  In  Congregational  usage  and  polity,  to  organize 
a  church  regularly  there  must  be  a  "Letter  Missive"  from 
a  committee  of  those  proposing  to  form  the  church,  di- 
rected, not  merely  to  individuals,  but  to  neighboring  Con- 
gregational churches,  to  formally  meet,  appoint,  and  send 
delegates,  bearing  "full  credentials,"  (1)  to  justify  the  exist- 
ence of  the  j9ro  re  nata  council  itself,  (2)  to  consult  with  the 
members  as  to  the  expediency  of  the  movement,  and  (3)  to 
form  the  church  if  the  way  be  clear.  This  council,  thus 
called,  can  not  organize  itself  as  a  council  except  by  read- 
ing the  "letter  missive"  to  the  churches  and  the  credentials 
of  the  delegates.  The  examination  of  the  letters  of  dis- 
mission, the  basis,  and  the  suitableness  of  the  parties,  comes 


[152] 

next.  If  the  way  be  clear,  the  council  then  votes  to  advise 
the  persons  named  in  the  list  to  proceed  to  form  the  pro- 
posed church,  not  yet  formed,  and  makes  arrangement  for 
public  services  by  the  council  to  promote  this  end — to  wit, 
the  sermon,  reading  of  the  basis,  prayer  of  recognition, 
giving  through  the  council  the  right  hand  of  fellowship 
from  the  churches  invited  to  the  members  about  to  form 
the  new  church,  address  to  the  church,  prayer,  and  bene- 
diction. After  the  reading  of  the  basis,  the  special  act  by 
which  the  new  church  is  constituted,  is  the  solemn  public 
rising  and  assent  of  the  parties  named  in  the  list  to  the 
basis  read  there  and  then  in  the  council.  After  this,  and 
not  before,  it  is  competent  for  the  new  church  to  elect  its 
officers,  and  choose  and  call  its  pastor. 

Such  is  the  Congregational  polity  and  usage,  upon  the 
authority  which  Mr.  McCuno  and  Mr.  Halley  present  to 
this  Court  as  competent  testimony  in  the  case.  Dexter,  pp. 
162-166.  Anything  else  than  this  is  bald  Independency. 
It  is  not  Congregationalism  because  it  lacks  the  fundamen- 
tal principle  of  "  affiliation  "  of  churches,  the  existence  of 
the  Council,  and  the  actual  presentation  and  reception,  by 
delegated  authority,  of  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  l^ow, 
Mr.  Moderator,  a  cloudless  sun,  in  mid  heaven,  on  the  fourth 
day  of  July,  is  not  more  clear  than  the  fact  that  the  Lin- 
wood  and  Mt.  Lookout  organization  was  as  gross  a  viola- 
tion of  Congregational  polity  and  usage,  as  it  was  of  Pres- 
byterian law  itself.  That  polity  and  usage  are  pleaded  in 
its  justification.  I  affirm  that  neither  one  nor  the  other 
lends  a  shadow  of  right  to  such  an  abnormal  and  nondescript 
performance  as  that  was.  Mr.  McCune  claims  that  the  organ- 
ization was  effected  before  the  Council  met.  I  affirm  that, 
when  a  Council  is  possible.  Congregational  polity  requires 
the  formation  of  the  Church,  its  very  inception  as  a  Church, 
to  take  place  at  the  time  and  in  the  very  presence  of  a  regu- 
larly delegated  and  regularly  organized  Council.  I  say  that 
according  to  Congregational  polity,  every  member  of  the  Lin- 
wood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Council  helped  to  organize  that 
Church,  on  the  very  principles  on  which  it  was  founded,  Mr. 
McCune  himself,  and  all  the  Presbyterians  who  were  present. 


[153] 

I  further  affirm,  on  the  very  testimony  introduced  here  by 
the  defendant,  that  that  Council  was  a  usurpation  in  every 
particular,  a  novelty,  an  innovation,  that  even  Independency 
itself  would  reject.  It  was  an  unauthorized,  new -thing 
under  the  sun,  destitute  of  ecclesiastical  authority  through- 
out. It  was  a  "  voluntary  club  of  men,"  I  care  not 
whether  the  organization  is  claimed  to  have  been  made 
either  before  the  Council  or  at  the  Council,  it  was  in  the 
face  of  Congregational  polity.  There  was  no  affiliation  of 
Churches.  No  letter  missive  was  sent  to  any  Church  what- 
ever. E^o  credentials  from  any  Church  were  presented, 
and  any  right  hand  of  fellowship  that  was  extended  was 
simply  the  right  hands  of  the  individuals  of  the  Council, 
who,  if  they  deem  themselves  to  be  each  one  a  Church,  are 
the  strangest  churches  this  world  has  ever  seen,  being  pas- 
tor, people,  committee-men,  deacons,  trustees,  choir,  sex- 
ton, and  church-edifice,  all  in  each  person.  Moderator, 
they  have  no  right  to  otter  a  right  hand  of  fellowship. 
They  had  none  to  offer.  The  ceremony  was  a  delusion. 
And  whether  we  regard  Mr.  McCune's  relations  to  the 
"we"  who  proposed  to  form  the  Church,  and  who,  he  says, 
did  form  the  Church,  or  to  the  Council,  he  is  still,  on  the 
evidence  adduced  in  this  Court,  one  of  the  parties  in  that 
transaction. 

But  still  further,  while  there  is  abundance  to  show  that 
the  organization  of  this  Church  was  in  violation  of  Con- 
gregational polity,  there  is  enough  to  show  also  that  the 
real  organization  of  that  Church,  unauthorized  as  it  was, 
did  actually  take  place  at  the  time  of  the  Council,  and  not 
before.  The  special  act  by  which  a  Congregational  Church 
is  constituted  is  declared  by  Dr.  Dexter,  who  is  one  of  the 
witnesses  of  the  defendant,  to  be  the  public  formal  assent, 
before  the  Council,  of  the  members  named  in  the  list,  to 
their  Basis  of  Faith  and  Covenant,  read  to  them  by  the 
Council.  Let  it  be  carefully  observed  that  the  recognition 
of  a  new  Church,  and  the  constituting  of  a  new  Church, 
and  the  address  to  the  new  Church  thus  constituted,  all 
occur  during  the  same  Council.  Upon  evidence  in  Court, 
these  things  did  occur,  viz.,  the  list  of  members  forming 


[154] 

the  Church  presented  to  the  Council,  the  appointment  of 
special  services,  the  reading  of  the  Basis,  the  recognition, 
the  sermon,  and  the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  Let  it  be 
further  observed  that  the  Preamble  of  the  Resolution  ofi'ered 
in  Council  states  that  the  parties  to  be  organized  had  '■'■now 
resolved  to  organize  themselves  permanently  as  a  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ ;"  that  they  had  "  resolved  upon  an  undenom- 
inational organization;"  that  the  members  of  the  Council 
were  present  to  give  them  "  fraternal  counsel  and  aid  in  the 
undertaking  in  which  they  were  about  to  engage;"  and  the 
Resolutior),  as  adopted,  declares  that  they  were  thereupon 
recognized  as  a  Church.* 

Now,  Sir,  what  have  we  in  this  matter?  We  have  (1)  the 
indubitable  fact  that  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Church 
was  not  organized  previous  to  the  Council,  and  that  all 
argument  to  the  contrary  is  mere  special  pleading,  and  a 
vain  attempt  at  escape.  We  have  (2)  the  fact  that  the  mere 
appearance  of  Congregationalism,  without  its  authority  and 
regular  mode  of  procedure,  was  given  to  the  petitioners, 
and  that  was  all.  To  have  called  a  Council  regularly,  and 
to  have  proceeded  regularly,  would  have  been  '■'■denomina- 
tional,^^ and  this  was  just  what  this  new  movement  proposed 
not  to  be  in  any  sense,  whatever.  The  demonstration  is 
complete  that  the  Society  was  veritably  organized  at  that 
time,  and  not  before.     But  in  either  case,  whether  before 

*  It  is  notorious,  as  every  member  of  that  Council  knows,  that  instead  of 
the  expression  "permanently  organize,"  the  expression  ^^provisionally  or- 
ganize" was  used  in  the  Preamble,  as  read  to  that  Council,  and  that  Dr. 
Morris  himself,  upon  theinsistance  of  Mr.  McCune,  erased  the  word  ^^pro- 
visionally''' and  inserted  the  word  ^^ permanently^'  in  that  Preamble.  This 
is  proof  conclusive  that  the  Church  had  not  been  organized  either  "pro- 
visionally" or  "permanently"  before  the  Council  met.  Furthermore,  the 
invitation  I  received  from  Dr.  Morris,  dated  December  13,  1875,  only  two 
days  before  the  Council  convened,  used  these  words:  "I  think  we  can 
safely  take  part  in  the  Council  by  which  this  Church  is  to  be  organized,  and  as 
safely  instal  Brother  McCune  as  its  pastor;"  adding  that  he  intends  to 
"preach  at  his  installation,  and  share  in  the  work  of  organizatio7i."  Fur- 
ther evidence  could  have  been  supplied,  but  the  Presbytery,  under  the  re- 
marks of  Dr.  Morris,  denied  to  the  Prosecution  the  right  to  introduce  testi- 
mony rebutting  the  allegations  of  the  defendant,  who  gathered  up  his  wit- 
nesses from  day  to  day,  as  he  needed  them  for  his  case. 


[155] 

or  at  the  time,  it  is  no  organization  at  all,  even  according 
to  Congregational  polity,  but  simply  an  independent  asso- 
ciation of  individuals,  like  any  other  independent  society, 
whether  medical,  botanical,  chemical,  or  agricultural.  The 
defendant  pleads  that  this  is  an  exceptional  case,  and  that 
the  Congregational  polity  makes  allowance  for  exceptional 
cases,  and  that  the  Church  did  organize  itself  before  the 
Council  met.  The  authority  of  Dr.  Dexter  and  other  testi- 
mony is  relied  upon  to  show  that  in  an  exceptional  case  in- 
dividuals may  organize  themselves  into  a  cliurch,  but  this 
is  no  more  Congregationalism  than  it  is  Presbyter! anism  or 
Methodism,  for  all  these  denominations  allow  the  same 
thing.  Does  this  mean  that  the  exception  is  the  rule?  that 
a  Church  not  Congregation  ally  organized  is  congrega- 
tionally  organized,  or  not  Presbyterially  organized  is 
Presbyterially  organized  ?  'No,  Sir,  the  exceptional 
church  is  not  a  Congregational  church,  and  can  not  be, 
because  it  is  the  exception.  It  is  a  purely  independent 
church.  Moreover,  what  constitutes  the  exception  ?  It  is 
not  peculiarity  of  views.  It  is  not  variety  of  views.  It  is 
not  even  the  impossibility  of  having  a  denominational 
church.  It  is  the  impossibiliti/  of  calling  a  council,  arising 
out  of  the  tact  that  no  sister  Congregational  churches  are 
near  or  within  reach.  In  other  words,  that  the  persons  to 
be  organized  are  so  far  from  the  Congregational  "aque- 
duct," as  Dr.  Dexter  calls  it,  that  the  people  have  to  "dig 
down"  anywhere  in  the  sand  to  iind  "living  water."  Dex- 
ter, p.  238.  I  quote  him  as  Mr.  Halley  quoted  him.  It  is 
only  when  the  people  are  "grouped  upon  some  far  Pacific 
slope,  hundreds  of  miles  from  any  church,  of  any  name, 
with  communication  almost  interdicted  by  the  distance  and 
peril  of  the  way  ;"  when  they  can  not  "  put  themselves  into 
communication  with  the  rest  of  the  world ;"  when  they 
would  be  subjected  "to  delay,  trouble,  expense,  often  disap- 
pointment and  dispersion  ;"  when  they  are  "  abnormal  and 
incomplete;"  when  they  are  "in  some  extreme  border  wil- 
derness;" and  when  it  is  "impossible  to  secure  the  counsel 
and  co-operation  of  existing  Congregational  churches  in 
the  act  of  their  formation."     Dexter,  pp.  238,  239,  and  162» 


[156] 

To  what  desperate  argument  is  the  defendant  compelled  to 
resort  in  his  plea  that  the  Mt.  Lookout  church  is  an  excep- 
tional case,  tbat  its  peculiar  organization  was  an  independ- 
ency forced  upon  it  by  necessity  of  position  and  circum- 
stance impossible  to  be  avoided  ?  Could  the  defendant 
himself,  so  near  the  Vine  Street,  Seventh  Street,  and  Co- 
lumbia Street  Congregational  aqueducts,  and  so  near  so 
many  other  churches,  plead  that  a  "  letter  missive"  could 
not  be  sent  to  those  churches  to  convene  and  send  delegates 
to  organize  his  new  enterprise?  Will  any  one  say  that 
Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  in  the  suburbs  of  Cincinnati, 
are  like  some  isolated  spot,  some  Sahara  desert,  or  Pacific 
slope,  or  far  ofl' island  in  the  sea,  or  extreme  border  wilder- 
ness, or  Himalaya  plain,  utterly  beyond  the  possibility  of 
calling  a  regular  Congregational  council,  and  obliged  by 
force  of  circumstances  to  extemporize  an  independent,  un- 
authorized club  of  ministers  and  laymen  to  meet  and  form 
and  recognize  the  new  church?  Moderator,  the  very  na- 
ture of  the  defense  is  the  strongest  argument  against  it.  Such 
was  the  common  fame  as  to  this  new  movement,  in  connec- 
tion with  Mr.  McCune's  name,  and  such  the  opposition  of 
the  best  part  of  our  community,  that  none  of  our  churches 
would  have  answered  his  letter  missive  except  by  respectful 
negation.  It  was  not  an  exceptional  case.  By  no  dint  of 
argument  can  such  character  be  adduced  to  justify  the 
council,  the  formation  of  the  church  such  as  it  is,  or  any- 
thing connected  with  it.  It  is  a  new  type  of  Independ- 
ency, a  new  movement,  and  nothing  else — the  assertion  of 
extremest  liberalism  and  individualism.  It  is  organic 
unionism,  in  defiance  of  all  scriptural  polity,  and  of  the 
polity  of  every  organized  denomination  on  earth.  If  our 
Congregational  brethren  choose  to  father,  foster,  receive, 
and  fellowship  the  McCune  enterprise,  with  its  doctrines 
and  its  principles  and  its  violation  of  even  their  own  ex- 
ception, it  is  their  Lookout  and  not  our  Lookout.  The 
Oberlin  platform  of  1871  will  gain  no  credit  by  the  addi- 
tion. 

But  now,  Mr.    Moderator,  the  Prosecution  cares  not  a 
farthing  whether  this  entire  performance  was  Congrega- 


[  157  ] 

tionalism  or  not.  Mr.  McCune  may  have  a  shadow  of 
Congregationalism  over  hie  church  and  over  himself  as  its 
pastor;  but  if  he  had  both  shadow  and  substance,  it  would 
not  help  him  in  the  least  degree  in  the  case  before  us.  The 
true  question  is,  not  whether  Mr.  McCune  has  complied 
with  Congregational  polity  and  usage,  but  whether  he  has 
complied  with  Presbyterian  polity  and  usage,  in  accordance 
with  his  solemn  ordination  vows ;  whether  he  has  not  ad- 
vocated principles  and  doctrines,  and  put  those  principles 
and  doctrines  into  practical  form  at  Linwood  and  Mt. 
Lookout  in  each  and  every  of  the  particulars  specified, 
which,  if  generally  allowed,  would  utterly  subvert  Presby- 
terian law  and  order,  and  destroy  the  Presbyterian  denom- 
ination itself,  and  turn  it  into  the  new  departure  of  the 
Oberlin  platform  of  1871. 

That  this  whole  procedure  of  Mr.  McCune  was  in  contra- 
vention of  the  organic  law  of  the  church,  by  which  every 
Presbyterian  minister  is  bound,  is  evident  by  reference  to  the 
standards.  1.  As  to  the  organization.  No  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter has  a  right  to  organize  any  church  whatever,  either  inside 
or  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Presbytery,  without  leave 
granted  or  permitted  by  the  Presbytery.  Organization  of 
Churches  is  a  function  reserved,  to  the  Presbytery  by  the 
Constitution,  and  no  minister  may  usurp  that  function  upon 
any  pretext  whatever,  nor  for  any  reason.  "  The  Presby- 
tery has  power  to  form,,  or  receive,  new  congregations." 
Digest,  p.  144.  "  Except  in  frontier  and  destitute  settle- 
ments, where  it  is  made  a  part  of  the  business  of  evangel- 
ists to  organize  Churches  witliout  the  previous  action  of 
some  Presbytery  directing  or  [»ermitting  it,  etc.,  since  in 
Chap.  IV.  (Form  of  Gov.)  no  mention  is  made  of  any  such 
power  being  lodged  in  the  hands  of  an  individual  minister." 
p.  173  (49).  With  the  above  exceptions,  the  rule  is  abso- 
lute. It  is  not  limited  to  the  formation  of  Churches  merely 
within  Presbyterian  jurisdiction.  If  a  minister  may  not 
usurp  the  Presbytery's  function  within  her  jurisdiction,  he 
may  not  outside  of  it.  The  function  of  organization,  in- 
side or  outside,  does  not  pertain  to  the  individual,  in  any 
case,  by  virtue  of  his  ministerial  office.     Organization  is  the 


[158] 

exercise  of  a  joiut  or  several  power,  and  only  exercised, 
individually,  by  express  delegation,  for  unavoidable  reasons, 
like  that  of  the  Pacific  slope,  or  extreme  border  wilderness. 
It  is  no  part  of  potestas  ordinis,  but  solely  of  potestas  juris- 
dictionis.  Even  Presbytery  can  only  exercise  it  where  she 
has  jurisdiction,  and  that  jurisdiction  is  excited  by  "appli- 
cation "  of  petitioners  desiring  organization.  But  if  a 
Presbytery  may  not  organize  outside  of  her  jurisdiction,  a 
fortiori,  a  minister  may  not,  who  has  neither  jurisdiction 
nor  function  to  that  end.  Least  of  all  may  a  minister  or- 
ganize, within  the  very  bosom  of  his  own  Presbytery,  and 
under  the  very  eyes  of  his  brethren,  a  society  founded  on 
principles  destructive  of  his  own  Church's  faith  and  order; 
much  less  morally  approve,  counsel,  co-operate,  or  create 
such  an  enterprise.  Palpabh^,  in  any  case,  outside  or  inside, 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  was  the  breach  of  comity 
and  order  in  the  manner  of  the  organization.  The  general 
rule  for  procedure  in  organization  is  that,  "  at  the  time  ap- 
pointed for  the  purpose,  after  prayer  for  Divine  direction 
and  blessing,  the  presiding  minister  or  committee  should 
first  receive  from  those  persons  to  be  organized  into  the 
new  Church,  if  they  have  been  communicants  in  otlier 
Churches,  letters  of  dismission  and  recommendatio7i ;  and 
next  examine  and  admit  to  a  profession  such  persons  as 
may  oft'er  themselves,  and  may  be  judged  suitable  to  be  re- 
ceived on  examination."  p.  107  (6).  And  this  is  the  very 
rnle  Dexter  himself  has  laid  down.  Picture  the  scene  at 
Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  on  the  representation  here 
brought  in.  A  company  of  church-members  undismissed, 
voting  the  paper  "  we,  giving  to  each  other  evidence  that 
we  are  Christ's  disciples,  propose,  by  the  help  of  God,  to 
organize  a  Union  Christian  Church,  etc.,"  thus  attempting 
to  become,  ipso  facto,  a  Church  of  Christ,  Mr.  McCune,  a 
Presbyterian  minister,  presiding,  and  then  the  Council  after- 
wards again  receiving  these  names  and  recognizing  the 
transaction  !  The  undismissed  members  "joining  on  profes- 
sion !  "  Joining  what?  And  Mr.  McCune  justifying  his 
course  because  it  was  "  outside  of  our  jurisdiction."  I 
will  not  trust  myself,  Moderator,  to  speak  what  I  feel,  or 


[  159  ] 

what  I  think  of  such  a  transaction,  so  in  violation  of  any 
decent  rule  in  any  so-called  "  sectarian  "  denomination,  and 
so  in  the  face  of  that  apostolic  precept,  "  Let  everything  be 
done  decently  and  in  order."  But,  then,  it  is  "  Or- 
ganic Union,"  a  gleam  of  the  millennium  !  2.  As  to  accept- 
ing a  pastoral  call.  No  Presbyterian  minister  may  accept 
a  call  to  become  a  pastor  anywhere,  except  by  leave  of  his 
Presbytery.  The  wisdom  of  this  rule,  as  well  as  of  the 
first,  is  the  shield  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  "  The  call  " 
from  any  Church,  inside  or  outside  our  jurisdiction,  "shall 
be  presented  by  the  Presbytery  under  whose  care  the  per- 
son or  persons  called  shall  be."  "  'No  minister  or  candidate 
shall  receive  a  call  but  through  the  hands  of  the  Presljy- 
tery."  Digest,  p.  409.  "  No  minister  shall  be  translated 
from  one  Church  to  another,  nor  shall  he  receive  any  call 
for  that  pnrpose,  but  by  permission  of  the  Presbytery."  p. 
410.  The  rule  is  absolute,  without  any  exceptions.  In 
every  case,  "  Commissioners  properly  authorized "  must 
represent  to  the  Presbytery  the  reasons  for  the  call,  then 
Presbytery  will  judge  whether  it  shall  be  placed  in  his 
hands.  Inside  or  outside  her  jurisdiction,  this  is  the  law. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  see  why  no  application  from  any  per- 
sons in  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  was  made  to  the  Presby- 
tery of  Cincinnati;  nor  is  it  credible  that  Mr.  McCune, 
having  been  for  twenty  years  a  Presbyterian  minister, 
should  not  well  understand  that,  had  any  such  application 
been  made,  it  would  have  run  at  least  the  hazard  of  rejec- 
tion. Besides,  it  would  have  been  utterly  inconsistent  with 
the  principles  of  Mr.  McCune  and  his  new  enterprise  to  ask 
any  favors  of,  or  recognize  "  distinctive,"  "  denomin- 
ational laws."  It  was  the  same  principle  of  resistance 
to  such  enactments,  and  whereby  Mr.  McCune  was  embold- 
ened to  usurp  the  Presbyterian  power  of  organization, 
even  where  the  Presbytery  had  no  jurisdiction,  that  repeated 
itself  in  the  acceptance  of  a  call  to  a  pastoral  charge  in  the 
very  bosom  of  the  Presbytery,  without  her  permission.  Inde- 
pendency and  Organic  Union  simply  determined  to  treat  with 
indifierence  and  disrespect,  the  laws  of  the  Presbyterian' 
Church,  as  well  as  of  the  Congregational  Church,  in  the 


[  160  ] 

case  of  her  own  ministers.  Mr.  McCune  was  intelligent  in 
all  this,  and  acted  consistently  with  his  independent  polity. 
His  plan  was  indexed  from  the  lirst.  3.  As  to  the  Council, 
Examination,  and  Installation.  It  was  a  purely  voluntary, 
extemporized,  and  undelegated  affair,  convened  not  accord- 
ing to  Congregational  usage.  The  exceptional  case  had  no 
existence  here.  It  represented  nobody.  There  was  not  a 
delegate  in  it.  No  sister  churches  sent  or  accredited  any 
representatives  to  it.  It  was  not  countenanced  by  any  duly 
organized  or  actually  recognized  Church  whatever.  The 
Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout  Church  is,  to  this  hour, 
without  ecclesiastical  recognition  from  any  denominations 
or  churches  whatever.  It  was  the  expedient  of  Mr.  McCune 
and  his  friends.  Any  company  of  ministers  gathered  on  the 
street,  at  any  time,  and  turning  aside  to  any  room,  to  vote 
and  do  anything  they  pleased,  upon  the  personal  request 
of  anybody,  would  be  as  genuine  a  Church  Council  as  was 
this.  It  was  no  Church  Council  whatever.  It  was  an  Or- 
ganic Union  "  Convention,"  met  to  indorse  Mr.  McCune's 
enterprise,  and  give  it  the  "  right  hand  of  fellowship,"  from 
nobody  but  themselves,  as  also  to  give  Mr.  McCune  himself  an 
indorsement,  and  form  a  pastoral  relation  between  himself 
and  Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout  Church.  It  was  known, 
well  known,  that  Mr.  McCune  had  not  obtained  leave  of 
his  Presbytery,  for  it  was  a  common  conversation  when  the 
invitation  to  the  Council  and  the  Manual  were  transmitted 
to  certain  persons  of  the  Presbytery.  Our  Standards,  and 
our  practice  as  a  Church,  recognize  no  such  proceeding  as 
that  one  of  our  ministers  may,  by  indirection,  secure  an  in- 
stallation for  himself  in  such  a  way.  We  have  allowed  our 
ministers,  under  special  circumstances,  to  take  part  in  or- 
thodox Congregational  Councils,  when  they  are  properly 
called,  and  in  a  rare  case  to  be  installed  over  an  orthodox 
Congregational  Church.  What  we  shall  do  since  the  Ober- 
lin  "New  Departure"  remains  to  be  seen.  But  we  do  not 
allow  them  to  sit  in  Baptist,  Methodist,  Episcopalian,  or 
Quaker  Councils,  much  less  in  a  Council  called  by  no 
Churches,  and  extemporized  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship  to  an  enterprise  built  upon  a  Basis 


[161] 

and  a  Creed  so  destructive  as  that  of  Lin  wood  and  Mount 
Lookout.  Mr.  McCune's  resort  to  such  an  expedient,  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  installation,  was  an  aggravated  vi- 
olation of  our  law  requiring  him  not  to  receive  any  call, 
anywhere,  without  leave  of  his  Presbytery.  The  liberty 
that  will  allow  Mr.  McCune's  course,  in  this  matter,  is  a 
liberty  that  will  allow  any  member  of  this  Presbytery  to 
go  and  organize  With  others,  or  co-operate  in  organizing,  a 
Baptist  Church,  or  an  Episcopalian,  or  a  Quaker  Church, 
or  any  kind  of  a  Church  on  any  kind  of  Basis,  just  as  well. 
There  is  no  limit  to  such  liberty.  Any  minister  may  be 
instrumental  in  calling  any  number  of  his  brethren  to- 
gether, at  any  time,  and  to  constitute  themselves  into  a  so- 
called  "  Council,"  do  what  they  choose,  responsible  to  none, 
and  call  themselves  "  delegates "  or  representatives  of 
Churches,  when  they  represent  no  Churches,  because  dele- 
gated by  none.  It  is  boundless  license.  Under  such  aus- 
pices, Mr.  McCune  was  installed.  The  testimony  is  clear. 
"  Those  in  attendance  were  not  delegated  by  any  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  but  came  simply  as  individuals,"  upon  the  invitation 
of  Mr.  McCune's  Church,  organized  out  of  undismissed 
members,  and  after  its  own  fashion.  This  is  not  in  "  accord- 
ance with  a  familiar  congregational  usage."  Congrega- 
tional usage  never  knew  of  such  an  instance.  Everything 
was  done  "  entirely  on  their  own  responsibility,"  and  the  fact 
that  members  of  that  Council  were  "  Christian  men  "  does 
not  help  the  matter.  By  a  Council,  composed  in  this  way, 
Mr.  McCune  secured  his  installation,  having  first  been  re- 
examined, and  then  indorsed  as  "  an  intelligent  and  thought- 
ful expositor  of  the  Scriptures,  and  a  reliable  teacher  on  all 
points  of  doctrine."  That  Mr.  McCune  again  violated 
the  law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  clear.  If  he  may 
not  accfept  a  call,  without  permission  of  the  Presbytery,  he 
may  not  be  instrumental  in  organizing  a  Church  on  a  new 
Basis,  and  then  instrumental  in  developing  a  new  kind  of 
Council  to  recognize  that  Church,  and  then  again  to  re-ex-' 
amine  and  install  him  on  a  call  he  had  no  right  to  accept, 
a  call  made  out  by  undismissed  members  belonging  to  other 
churches  still.     Mr.  McCune  was  as  much  bound  to  ask 


[162] 

leave  of  his  Presbytery  to  be  installed  as  to  accept  a  call. 
He  knew  tbis  well  in  his  experience  as  a  pastor.  If  it  be- 
longs to  Presbytery  "  to  examine  "  and  "  install  "  ministers, 
it  belongs  to  Presbytery  to  permit  them,  or  forbid  them  to 
be  installed  by  any  Council,  or  by  any  court  in  the  world. 
Digest,  p.  144  (VIII).  But  it  was  all  part  and  parcel  of 
Mr.  McCune's  Organic  Union  scheme  to  act  in  this  way. 
The  conviction,  in  his  soul,  that  the  enforcement  of  "  de- 
nominational laws  "  and  "  organic  enactments  "  is  an  op- 
pression of  the  conscience,  and  a  deprivation  of  Christian 
and  ministerial  liberty,  and  his  determination  to  ex- 
hibit his  Organic  Union  freedom  to  the  world,  prompted 
him  to  violate  the  whole  law  of  his  Church  in 
one  bold  movement,  proclaim  his  doctrines,  start  a 
"Union  Christian  Church,"  receive  a  call,  get  up  a 
council,  be  re-examined,  re-indorsed,  and  installed  over  the 
church,  all  without  dismission  from  or  leave  of  his  Presby- 
tery. It  was  a  bold  move,  an  intelligent  move.  All  that 
remained  to  be  done,  in  order  to  make  the  triumph  com- 
plete, was  to  oflficially  enrol  him  as  "  Pastor,"  so  affixing 
the  imprimatur  and  sanction  of  the  Presbytery  to  his  in- 
stallation, under  all  the  circumstances,  and  so  confirming 
his  relation  to  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  church,  an 
act  formally  done  by  the  Presbytery  at  Glendale,  April  13, 
1876.  And  this,  too,  in  face  of  the  public  discussion  be- 
tween himself  and  the  Herald  &  Presbyter,  the  latter  warn- 
ing him  in  the  following  words,  when  speaking  of  what  it 
calls  his  "  project,"  "  scheme,"  "  aim,"  viz. :  "  We  are  at 
loss  to  understand  how  Mr.  McCune  can  be  willing  to  re- 
tain a  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church  !  We  should 
suppose  that  he  would  pass  at  once  from  an  old  organiza- 
tion that  is  unauthorized  and  extra^Scriptural  to  a  new  one 
on  a  N"ew  Testament  Basis ! "  (Proof  6.)  The  Presbyterian 
Church  of  the  Reunion,  in  the  name  of  her  Standards, 
lifts  her  voice  of  remonstrance  against  the  course  pursued 
by  Mr.  McCune  herein.  Boldly,  Mr.  McCune  steps  forth 
to  say  :  "  I  have  violated  no  Presbyterian  law  whatever,  in  ac- 
cepting  yny  present  pastorate,  nor  in  anything  I  have  done  per- 
taining to  the  Union  Christian  Church  at  Linwood  and  Mt. 


[163] 

Lookout !!!"  He  does  more.  He  challenges  the  right  of 
this  court  to  call  him  to  account  for  the  propagation  of  his 
principles.  Appealing  to  the  progress  of  organic  union 
views,  and  Oberlin  Congregationalism  within  the  last  de- 
cade, and  the  encouragement  received  since  his  connection, 
ten  years  ago,  with  this  Presbytery,  he  says  :  "  This  might 
have  been  a  fair  question  eight  or  ten  years  ago,  but  it  is  cer- 
tainly too  late  now  !"  (Proof  5.)  Under  cover  of  the  plea 
that,  because  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  church  is 
^^  outside  Presbyterian  jurisdictio?!,"  therefore,  he,  a  minister 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  not  required  to  get  permis- 
sion from  his  Presbytery  to  accept  a  call  and  be  installed, 
he  says:  ^^  Any  petty  question  about  the  formality  of  first 
asking  leave,  may  interest  hair-splitting  ecclesiastical 
lawyers,  whose  vocation  it  is  to  tithe  mint,  anise,  and  cum- 
min. If  Presbytery  says  the  thing  done  is  right,  I  will  be 
content.  If  she  says  I  should  have  first  asked  leave,  I  will 
plead  ignorance  and  indifference  "  (Proof  6);  in  plain  Saxon, 
"  I  will  say,  I  didn't  know,  and  I  don't  care ;"  this  shall 
be  my  plea.  This  was  said,  in  the  Presbyterian,  February 
12,  1876.  The  Presbytery's  official  enrollment  of  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune  liS  "Pastor"  of  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Church 
was  April  13, 1876,  just  two  months  after !  He  judges  that, 
because  the  church  is  "  outside  "  of  jurisdiction,  he  has  a 
right  to  act  as  if  he  were  outside  of  jurisidctiou  also!  that 
jurisdiction  over  the  person  and  conduct  of  a  minister  de- 
pends upon  jurisdiction  over  the  particular  church  with 
which  he  is  connected,  whereas  it  rests  upon  these  two  facts 
alone  (1),  that  he  is  himself  a  member  of  the  Presbytery, 
no  matter  where  his  church  may  be,  and  (2),  that  the  laws 
transgressed  pertain  to  the  minister,  and  not  to  the  church. 
Mr.  McCune  can  not  divest  himself,  at  pleasure,  of  his 
ordination  vows,  nor  relieve  himself  of  obedience  to  these 
laws  on  the  plea  that  his  church  is  "outside  of  Presbyterian 
jurisdiction,"  or  on  the  plea  of  ignorance ;  ignorantia  juris 
non  excusat.  Outside  or  inside,  it  is  all  the  same  so  far  as 
his  membership  and  these  laws,  made  for  ministers,  and 
not  for  churches,  are  concerned.  Any  dispute  of  this 
fundamental  doctrine,  he  calls  a  "  petty  question."     Any 


[164] 

defense  of  it,  a  "  hair-splitting  vocation  of  ecclesiastical 
lawyers,  tithing  mint,  anise,  and  cummin."  If  arraigned 
for  violating  it,  he  says,  "  I  don't  know,  and  I  don't  care." 
Such  is  Organic  Union  ! 

Moderator,  I  am  well  aware  that,  as  against  the  posi- 
tions the  Prosecution  here  take,  and  as  against  the  organic 
enactments  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  plea  of 
"  Usage"  has  been  advanced,  and  may  yet  be  advanced  in 
the  present  case.  I  am  aware  the  argument  for  non-en- 
forcement of  denominational  law,  and  for  the  grant  of 
liberty  according  to  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Age  "  is  crowned 
with  the  argument  of  "Usage  "  in  reference  to  the  permis- 
sion given  some  ministers,  under  rare  circumstances,  to  be 
installed  as  pastor  over  orthodox  Congregational  Churches. 
Mr.  McCune  has  made  that  plea.  Others  have  made  that 
plea.  I  deem  it,  therefore,  a  part  of  my  duty  to  meet  that 
argument,  and  vindicate  the  Presbyterian  Church  against 
its  influence  and  effect  wherever  made.  Especially  do  I 
deem  it  loyalty  to  our  "  Reunion  "  that,  here  and  now,  it 
should  be  met.  It  has  assumed  a  latitude  it  never  dared 
to  measure  any  time  before.  I  regard  the  use  of  that  argu- 
ment of  usage  as  fatal  to  the  peace,  unity,  and  purity  of 
our  church.  It  is  a  dangerous  plea  to  make.  If  usage 
consecrates  the  right  of  Mr.  McCune  to  do  as  he  has  done, 
"  usage "  will  consecrate  the  ruin  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  I  concede  that  a  continuous  custom,  or  practice, 
grown  up  under  an  express  law,  is  the  best  exposition  of 
that  law,  for  the  law  itself  is  the  basis  on  which  the  usage 
rests.  The  usage  has  prescription  to  support  it.  I  concede 
also,  that  where  there  is  no  law,  usage  may  itself  grow  to 
a  general  law  which  it  might  be  mischievous  to  abate.  But 
neither  of  these  cases  is  the  case  before  us.  liTot  the  first, 
for  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  no  law,  no  prescription 
upon  any  such  usage  as  that  Mr.  McCune  claims  is  founded. 
There  is  no  statute  for  such  a  thing  to  rest  upon.  IlTot  the 
second,  for  we  have  express  laws  of  our  denomination 
forbidding  the  very  things  that  Mr.  McCune  has  done^ 
whether  as  to  propagating  his  Organic  Union  views, 
practicing   an   independent   polity,  organizing   a   Church, 


[165] 

accepting  a  call,  or  being  re-examined  and  installed  by  an 
undelegated  or  other  Council,  without  permission  of 
his  Presbytery.  Moreover,  before  usage  may  be  pleaded, 
where  no  law  exists,  it  must  be  shown  to  be  established 
well  by  time,  without  interruption,  peaceably  enjoyed,  and 
consistent  with  the  public  good.  But  all  these  tests  of 
usage  are  violated  here.  The  practice  claimed  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Cune  never  was  established  by  time  ;  it  never  has  been  un- 
interrupted; it  never  was  peaceably  enjoyed;  it  never  con- 
duced to  the  peace  and  good  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Apart  from  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  accompaniments, 
it  began  about  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  and 
was  a  compromise  even  with  Congregationalism,  it  has  been 
severely  interrupted,  it  was  never  peaceably  enjoyed,  though 
acquiesced  in  for  a  period,  and  it  produced  only  "  harm"  to 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  With  the  Linwood  and  Mt. 
Lookout  accompaniments,  I  think  it  may  safely  be  said,  it 
never  was  known  in  all  the  history  of  the  Church  on  earth. 
It  has  no  prescription.  May  it  never  become  a  precedent ! 
The  usage  as  to  Congregational  Churches,  our  allowing 
Presbyterian  ministers  to  receive  their  call  and  be  installed, 
never  dispensed  with  jurisdiction  over  such  ministers,  nor 
allowed  them  to  receive  such  call  or  be  installed,  but  by 
permission  of  the  Presbytery.  The  usage  rested  on  the 
Plan  of  Union  of  1801.  It  was  a  bad  prescription,  and  was 
abrogated,  as  unconstitutional  from  the  beginning,  in  1838. 
All  the  force,  and  all  the  right,  the  usage  had,  in  reference 
to  Congregational  Churches,  and  guaranteed  by  the  Union 
plan  of  1801,  fell,  when  it  fell  in  1838.  If  the  usage  did 
once  exist,  it  yet  came  from  a  prescription  now  gone.  It 
grew  out  of  that  plan,  Our  Reunion  has  called  us  back 
again  to  the  "  old  paths,"  the  "good  old  ways"  antecedent 
to  the  time  of  those  sad  controversies  of  which  that  bad 
prescription  was  the  seed.  We  are  cautioned  not  to  make 
any  "needless  or  offensive"  reference  to  the  past,  much 
more  not  to  revive  the  practices  that  gave  the  Church  her 
trouble.  "It  is  the  duty  of  all  our  Church  judicatories, 
ministers  and  people  of  the  united  Church,"  say  our  Cou- 
curreut  Resolutions,  "  to  avoid  all  needless  and  offensive  re- 


[166] 

ference  to  the  causes  that  divided  ns;  and,  in  order  to  avoid 
the  revival  of  past  issues,  by  the  continuance  of  any  usage  in 
in  either  branch  of  the  Church  that  has  grown  out  of  former 
conflicts,  it  is  earnestly  recommended  to  the  lower  judica- 
tories that  they  conform  their  practice  in  relation  to  all  such 
USAGES,  so  far  as  is  consistent  with  their  convictions  of 
duty,  to  the  general  custom  of  the  Church  prior  to  the  con- 
troversies that  resulted  in  the  separation."  Digest,  p.  93. 
Those  controversies  began  soon  after  the  plan  of  1801. 
Again,  where  any  "  usage  "  is  thus  related  to  the  conflicts 
of  the  past,  a  "  usage  asserted  and  defended  by  some,  denied 
and  discarded  by  others,"  its  "  abolition  "  is  demanded.  And 
this  Mr.  McCune  and  this  Presbytery  have  voted  for.  I 
submit.  Moderator,  that  by  the  Terms  of  our  Reunion,  no 
-man  is  entitled  to  plead  Congregational  "  usage,"  and  ap- 
peal to  some  few  yet  existing  instances  of  it,  as  shown  by 
our  Assembly  Minutes,  much  less  under  the  Oberlin  "New 
Departure."  These  are  the  remnants  of  a  "  usage  "  against 
which  the  assembly  has  advised  our  ministers  and  all  our 
courts.  Least  of  all  can  these  cases  be  pleaded  as  an  argu- 
ment for  Mr.  McCune's  course  at  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout. 
The  enterprise  of  Mr.  McCune  and  his  whole  course  herein 
is  -without  prescription,'  and  without  a  shadow  of  defense 
from  "  usage  "  of  any  kind  whatever  in  our  Body  as  to 
Congregational  Churches.  It  is  a  pure  inception,  an  in- 
novation, a.  "new  thing  under  the  sun,"  a  "sore  evil"  to 
the  Church  of  Christ.  It  is  without  a  parallel.  It  rests  its 
-claim  on  no  analogy  that  can  be  cited,  as  allowed,  in  the 
whole  history  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  is  a  new  de- 
velopment of  the  times.  To  lean  for  support  on  the 
"  usage  "  of  the  past  is  to  lean  on  a  tree  with  its  roots  cut 
away,  upon  a  custom  that  produced  disaster  and  disruption. 
It  is  proposed  that  we  fraternize  with  this  Organic  Union 
movement  by  the  recognition  of  this  enterprise,  and  by  the 
plea  that  "usage"  justifies  the  toleration,  by  this  Pres- 
bytery, of  the  double,  contradictory,  anomalous,  and  anti- 
pro-denominational  subscription  and  allegiance  of  its  pastor. 
Moderator  and  Brethren,  it  is  our  bounden  duty,  not  merely 
as  Presbyterians,  but  as  Christian  ministers  and  elders,  to 


[167] 

resist  this  bad  inceptioE.  Soon,  indeed,  if  not  already,  as 
Mr.  McCune  suggests,  it  may  he  "too  late!" 

"  Principiis  obsia ;  sero  medicina  paratur."  The  course  of 
Mr.  McCune  herein  is  utterly  at  war  with  all  his  ordination 
vows  and  the  true  deportment  of  all  ministers.  How  can 
the  Presbyterian  Church  allow  a  minister  to  have  jurisdic- 
tion over  all  her  churches,  when  even  the  inspection  of  the 
records  of  his  own  is  formally  denied  ?  How  permit  one 
minister  to  ignore,  in  theory  and  in  practice,  our  whole 
Form  of  Government  and  Book  of  Discipline,  and  even  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  our  system,  and  publicly  teach 
contrary  to  the  same?  By  what  right  send  such  a  minister 
to  our  General  Assembly  "  which  represents  in  one  body  all 
the  particular  churches  of  this  denomination  "  (Digest,  p. 
200),  when  he  represents  a  church  not  of  "  this  denomina- 
tion?" Is  it  ingenuous  to  plead  the  "usage"  of  the  past, 
now  interdicted,  for  an  enterprise  that  rests  on  no  prescrip- 
tion ;  when  such  past  usage  had  prescription  and  permis- 
sion both  ?  To  plead  that  argument  is  vain.  What  has  no 
prescription  is  an  innovation. 

The  argument  of  usage  may  be,  in  these  times,  the  ruin 
of  our  peace  and  unity  and  purity.  It  is  another  name  for 
the  non-enforcement  of  our  Standards.  It  is  the  destruction 
of  our  true  liberties  and  rights.  Charles  I  pleaded  usage 
for  the  exaction  of  money  from  his  subjects.  We  know 
what  came  of  that.  Henry  VIII  did  the  same  thing.  We 
know  what  came  of  that.  Usage  made  Magna  Charta  a 
dead  letter,  just  as  usage  may  make  our  Presbyterian  Con- 
stitution here  the  same.  Were  Hampden,  Cromwell,  and 
Sydney  wrong?  Once  the  Presbyterian  Church  allowed 
corresponding  members  to  deliberate  and  vote  in  our  Courts. 
We  know  what  came  of  that.  Under  the  usage,  grounded 
in  the  plan  of  1801,  a  host  of  troubles  came.  It  should  be 
enough  for  us  to  know,  when  pleading  usage,  that  no  usage 
can  be  pleaded  against  a  positive  Constitution  to  the  con- 
trary. Nothing  against  the  church's  peace  and  welfare 
may  be  tolerated.  "  Contra  Bempublicam,  priveligium  non 
valet"  And  where  a  bad  practice  arises,  it  must  be 
abolished.     What  in  the  beginning  was  vicious,  does  not 


[168] 

become  valid  by  lapse  of  time.  So  is  the  maxim  of  com- 
mon law  as  true,  more  true  for  the  Church  than  for  the 
State.  Whatever  is  contrary  to  law  may  not  be  done  by 
circumvention.  'No  Court  may  decide  against  the  Consti- 
tution. A  bad  usage  never  avails  to  bar  the  valid  plea  of 
a  constitutional  objection,  or  the  welfare  of  the  Church.  We 
have  no  "  Toleration  Act"  for  Mr.  McCune,  no  "Custom  of 
the  King  "  to  plead,  no  "  usage."  To  make  usage,  where 
it  is  a  violation  of  law,  an  argument  for  its  own  continu- 
ance, is  to  make  transgression  its  own  defense.  Brethren, 
let  us  stop  this  plea.  "  Stand  in  the  ways  and  see  and  ask 
for  the  old  paths,  where  is  the  good  way,  and  walk  therein, 
and  ye  shall  find  rest  to  your  souls."  "  Sure  I  am,"  says 
Lord  Bacon,  "  that  Stare  decisis  is  a  good  principle,  and  an- 
tiquity hath  its  wisdom.  Stare  super  vias  antiquas,  stand 
upon  the  old  ways.  The  very  word  and  style  of  Reforma- 
tion used  by  our  Savior,  ab  initio  non  fuit  sic,  was  applied 
to  Church  matters,  and  those  of  the  highest  nature."  It 
will  be  our  life,  and  strength,  and  peace,  and  unity,  and  pu- 
rity, and  historic  glory,  in  future  as  in  past,  if  we  observe 
to  do  what  our  ordination  vows  bind  us  to  do,  not  as  op- 
pressed, but  as  free,  loyal,  and  loving  Presbyterians. 


And  so  may  it  please  the  Court !  The  prosecution  pre- 
sent to  you  these  charges  and  this  argument,  asking  of  the 
Court,  in  the  name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  a  definitive 
judgment  upon  the  allegations  here  made,  and  if  regarded 
as  proved,  a  definitive  condemnation  of  those  doctrines 
and  that  course,  which  are  not  only  at  war  with  the  stand- 
ards of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  but  which — the  one  if 
generally  accepted,  the  other  if  generally  allowed — would 
be  totally  subversive  of  her  constitution  and  of  her  very 
existence  as  a  distinctive  denomination.  The  prosecution 
ask,  in  the  name  of  the  Church,  still  more, — a  definitive 
arrest  of  the  propagation  of  such  errors,  and  a  positive  in- 
junction that  they  shall  not  be  taught  by  any  minister 
under  our  jurisdiction,  nor  allowed  to  be  taught  in  any  of 


[  169  ] 

our  churches.  For  what  further  action  may  be  necessary 
in  view  of  the  present  relations  of  Mr.  McCune  to  the 
Lii;iwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Church,  and  to  the  General 
Association  of  "Union  Cliristian  Churches"  of  which  he 
is  an  active  member,  the  Prosecution  refer  the  Court  to  the 
law  of  our  denomination,  already  so  abundantly  cited. 

The  hour  is  a  momentous  one  for  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  if  the  interest  taken  abroad  in  this  case  is  any 
sign,  and  if  the  omens  in  the  church  at  large  are  fraught 
with  any  lesson !  Never  before  in  all  our  history  has  there 
been  such  a  disposition  to  put  "  Union  before  Truth"  as 
there  is  to-day.  Who  knows  not  that  times  of  Union  are 
times  of  peril  to  the  Truth  of  Christ?  And  what  loyal 
minister  of  the  'Presbyterian  Church  is  ignorant  that  the 
truth  of  Christ  and  the  order  of  the  heavenly  house  may 
not  be  sacrificed  for  any  external  fellowship,  however  great, 
nor  for  any  considerations  of  expediency  or  economy?  It 
is  time  the  appeal  to  "  conscience,"  "  liberty,"  "  private 
judgment,"  "  usage,"  all  perverted  as  it  is,  were  hushed. 
Conscience  has  no  rights  against  conscience.  Liberty 
under  law  has  no  rights  of  disobedience  to  the  law  itself. 
Vows  of  allegiance  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  have  no 
rights  of  reservation,  none  of  revolution,  against  the  en- 
forcement of  her  .doctrine  and  her  order.  Truth  in  the 
inward  parts,  sincerity  adopting  and  approving  her  stand- 
ards as  "agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,"  has  no  right  to 
traduce  those  standards  as  "sectarian."  Private  judgment 
has  no  rights  of  public  transgression.  Usage  has  no  rights 
against  the  welfare  of  the  church.  Allow  such  license  to 
goon  "  unquestioned,"  let  Presbyterian  ministers  indulge 
it  everywhere,  and  the  muse  of  history,  now  in  this  Court, 
will  write  the  epitaph  '■^  Fuit  Ecclesia  Preshyteriana"  over 
the  grave  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  before  this  genera- 
tion shall  have  passed  away !  We  know  the  progress  of 
error,  and  the  arts  she  practices  to  twine  herself  around  the 
human  understanding.  "  Toleration"  first,  and  only  tolera- 
tion, is  all  she  asks.  Grown  to  greatness,  she  next  de- 
mands '■'•Equality  of  Rights"  with  the  Truth  itself,  and  then 
the  contest  comes.     Last  of  all,  "  Supremacy,"  the  crown 


[170] 

upon  her  head,  and  Truth  dethroned  !  Allow  your  minis- 
ters and  elders  to  pursue  the  course  of  Mr.  McCune,  and 
claim  subscription  to  your  standards  as  a  valid  plea, for 
resting  on  your  roll,  then  measure,  if  you  can,  the  march 
of  error!  So  the  Rationalistic  Lutherans  of  Germany  all 
signed  the  Augsburg  Confession.  So  the  Socinians  of 
Geneva,  after  Calvin's  day,  all  signed  the  Calvinistic  Sym- 
bols. So  the  subscribers  to  the  Heidleberg  Catechism  be- 
came Pantheists,  Deists,  and  Unitarians.  So  Broad  Church 
Anglicans  subscribe  the  thirty-nine  articles.  So  some  Mo- 
hammedans subscribe  the  I*Ticene  Creed.  So  Mr.  McCune 
subscribes  the  standards  and  preaches  the  doctrines  of  Or- 
ganic Union,  invoking  the  cry  of  "toleration"  in  his  own 
favor  and  "sectarianism"  against  his  owii  denomination. 
Moderator,  sectarianism  and  ecclesiastical  denominations 
are  not  synonymous  and  identical  terms.  Presbyterianism 
is  not  "  sectarianism."  It  is  a  Divine  Testimony.  The 
Presbyterian  Church  is  not  a  "  sect."  It  is  a  Divine  Foun- 
dation. And  well  may  it  stand,  if  the  best  assaults  of  all 
its  foes  are  found  to  be  but  misinterpretations  of  the  Word 
of  God,  and  vain  theories  spun  from  their  own  imagina- 
tions. But  a  worse  than  Galatiau  bewitchment  has  touched 
I  know  not  how  many  ministers  of  Christ,  I  know  not  how 
many  true  Christians.  "  Union  before  Truth"  is  the  popular 
accent  of  the  day.  The  music  goes  sounding  through  all 
our  Paradise.  "  Down  with  dogmatism"  is  the  cry.  It 
means  unquestioned  toleration.  It  is  not  hard  to  tell  its 
source.  If  you  will  but  follow  Ithuriel  and  Zephon  in  their 
search,  you. shall  soon  find  the  lurking  "  spirit  of  the  age," 
spotted  with  indifi'erence  to  the  Truth  of  God,  whispering 
through  Organic  Union, 

^^  Squat  like  a  toad,  at  the  church's  ear, 
Assaying  by  its  cunning  art  to  reach 
The  organs  of  her  fancy,  and  with  them  forge 
Illusions  as  it  lists,  phantasms  and  dreams, 
Vain  hopes,  vain  aims,  inordinate  desires. 
Blown  up  with  high  conceits  engendering  pride." 

God  speed  the  day  when  the  Presbyterian  Church  again, 
as  of  old,  shall  enforce  her  constitution  and  her  laws!    God 


[  171  ] 

speed  the  day  when  all  her  ministers  shall  be  loyal  and 
true — priests  whose  "  lips  shall  keep  knowledge,  and  the 
people  learn  the  law  at  their  mouth,"  for  they  are  "mes- 
sengers of  the  Lord  of  hosts ;"  when,  strong  in  the  confi- 
dence of  sound  doctrine  and  a  heavenly  order,  they  shall 
be  ready  to  confront  with  apostolic  zeal  those  "  whose 
mouths  must  be  stopped,"  who  "subvert  whole  houses, 
teaching  things  which  they  ought  not ;"  when  they  shall 
"  give  heed  to  themselves  and  the  doctrine,  and  continue 
in  it,  knowing  that  in  doing  this  they  shall  "save  both 
themselves  and  them  that  hear  them."  Such  a  ministry 
the  Presbyterian  Church  has  enjoyed  before,  in  the  days  of 
her  martyr-witness  for  the  truth.  May  the  genius  of  those 
hours  return  !  when  all  shall  "  stand  fast  in  one  spirit,  with 
one  mind,  striving  for  the  faith  of  the  gospel ;"  men  "like- 
minded,"  "  earnestly  contending  for  tlje  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints," — the  truth  of  Christ,  "the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth."  And  God  speed  the  day,  when, 
once  more,  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  the  "Reunion," 
shall  not  let  down  her  colors  from  the  mast,  nor  give  her 
ministers  the  right  to  raise  some  tattered  remnant  of  her 
faith  upon  the  top  of  some  new  mountain ;  but  lifting  high 
her  symbol  to  the  gallant,  unfurling  it  on  every  temple 
spire  and  on  every  court,  to  float  in  every  breeze,  shall  rally 
round  her  own  time-honored,  battle-worn,  and  broad  blue 
banner,  emblem  of  the  faith,  believed  in,  loved,  and  felt 
through  all  her  blood — the  ensign  of  her  glory  and  her 
strength  ! 


[172] 


THE  FIXAL  MliTUTE  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY. 

The  Committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  matter  of  pre- 
paring a  minute  for  the  adoption  of  the  Presbytery  in  the 
case  in  which  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune  was  the  defendant,  have 
not  thought  it  proper  to  make  prominent  in  the  same  their 
individual  or  even  collective  views.  They  have  deemed  it 
their  simple  duty,  by  a  faithful  and  patient  analysis  of  the 
different  votes,  and  by  an  earnest  endeavor  to  recall  the 
differing  opinions  expressed,  to  make  up  a  judgment  and 
finding  which  should  fairly  and  fully  represent  the  mind  of 
the  Court.  "With  this  explanation  of  their  conception  of 
the  task  assigned  them,  the  Committee  beg  leave  to  submit 
the  following  minute,  viz  : 

The  Presbytery  has  given  patient  attention  to  the  whole 
matter.  The  trial  lasted  thirteen  days.  Both  the  Com- 
mittee of  Prosecution  and  the  accused  had  the  amplest  op- 
portunity to  present  their  testimony  and  to  comment  on  the 
same: 

JSTo  rules  of  procedure  were  adopted  beyond  what  were 
necessary  to  the  proper  and  full  investigation  of  the  case. 

The  general    charge  of    disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church  was  presented  in  two  specific  charges,  the  first  hav-. 
ing  reference  to  the  defendant's  opinions,  and  the  second  to 
his  acts. 

On  both  of  these  charges  the  defendant  was  acquitted  by 
the  decisive  vote  of  29  to  8,  and  in  the  judgment  of  this 
Court  his  character  and  standing  as  a  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter are  uuimpeached.  He  also  carries  away  from  this  pain- 
ful traverse  of  his  case  our  commendation  of  him  as  a 
faithful  and  self-denying  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  well 
as  their  respect  for  his  manly  and  Christian  demeanor 
throughout  the  trial. 

The  general  ofi'ense  of  disloyalty  was  regarded  as  not 
substantiated  by  the  proof  adduced  under  the  various  speci- 
fications.    The  reasons  for  this  judgment  of  the  Court  in 


[  173  ] 

detail  are  as  follows,  looking  first  to  the  several  items  of  the 
first  charge  : 

Although  these  charges  were  presented  by  common  fame, 
in  the  name  of  the  Presbytery,  it  was  decided  by  a  vote  of 
32  to  5,  with  one  to  sustain  in  part,'that  the  eleventh  speci- 
fication, afiirming  the  existence  of  such  common  fame,  had 
not  been  proved  by  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  Prose- 
cuting Committee.  The  basis  of  the  action  was  thus,  after 
careful  hearing  of  the  evidence,  invalidated  in  the  judgment 
of  the  Presbytery  itself. 

The  tenth  specification,  as  to  the  length  of  time,  affirm- 
ing that  the  defendant  had  persisted  for  many  years  in  ad- 
vocating his  opinions,  was  not  sustained,  by  a  vote  of  17  to 
12,  with  9  in  part,  chiefly  for  the  reason  that  the  statute  of 
limitation  forbids  the  instituting  of  process  in  the  case  of 
any  person  for  such  protracted  period,  "  unless  it  (the  crime) 
shall  have  recently  become  flagrant." 

Of  the  nine  specifications  relating  to  the  opinions  of  the 
accused,  supposed  to  be  at  variance  with  our  doctrinal 
standards,  six  were  declared  by  decisive  majorities  to  be 
not  sustained.  The  first  specification,  affirming  what  the 
defendant  taught  respecting  the  "  Divine  Law  of  Organi- 
zation of  the  Christian  Church,"  was  not  sustained,  by  a 
vote  of  25  to  8,  with  4  in  part.  The  second  specification, 
*'As  to  the  essential  sinfulness  of  the  Presbyterian  and  all 
other  existing  evangelical  denominations,  as  such,"  was  not 
sustained,  by  a  vote  of  25  to  4,  with  8  in  part.  Tlie  third 
specification,  "As  to  the  sinfulness  of  framing  and  requiring 
assent  to  human  creeds,"  was  not  sustained  by  a  vote  of  28 
to  5,  with  5  in  part.  The  fourth  specification,  asserting 
that  the  defendant  taught  that  Presbyterian  ministers  might 
change  old  views  of  doctrine  and  polity,  and  still  remain  in 
the  Presbytery,  was  not  sustained,  by  a  vote  of  31  to  4, 
with  3  in  part.  The  fifth  specification,  as  to  the  defend- 
ant's alleged  opinion  that  Presbyterian  and  other  evangeli- 
cal ministers  might  belong  to  two  diflerent  denominations 
at  once,  was  not  sustained,  by  a  vote  of  32  to  4,  with  2  in 
part.     The  ninth  specification,  asserting  that  the  defendant 


[  174  ] 

taught  what  was  heretical  as  to  the  subject  of  saving  faith, 
was  not  sustained,  by  a  vote  of  29  to  4,  with  5  in  part. 

In  the  investigation  of  the  evidence  as  to  these  specifi- 
cations, it  became  apparent  that  the  opinions  of  the  de- 
fendant had  been  misapprehended,  and  that  he  did  not 
hold  these  doctrines,  as  alleged.  Some  of  the  specifications 
were  inferential,  such  as  the  idea  of  a  plurality  of  official 
membership,  and  as  to  the  right  to  remain  within  a  de- 
nomination while  pursuing  courses  intended  to  subvert  it. 
On  these  the  Presbj^tery  was  precluded  from  passing  con- 
demnation by  the  instruction  of  the  General  Assembly,  in 
the  Craighead  case,  1824.  (Digest  224.)  The  specification 
in  regard  to  saving  faith  was  thrown  aside  in  view  of  the 
frank  disavowals  of  the  defendant  (see  same  case.  Digest, 
224),  and  of  the  confidence  felt  by  nearly  all  in  his  personal 
loyalty  to  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  as  set  forth  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  chapter  xiv.  While  the  proofs  under 
these  above-named  specifications  disclose  some  things  in 
language  and  expression  which  are  to  be  deprecated,  and 
some  things  which  the  Presbytery  does  not  approve,  there 
is  not  to  be  found  in  them,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Court, 
atiy  support  for  the  charge  of  disloyalty. 

In  reference  to  three  of  the  nine  specifications,  the  large 
majority  of  the  Presbytery  were  agreed  to  sustain,  or  to 
sustain  in  part.  The  vote  on  the  sixth  specification,  "As. 
to  the  terms  of  ministerial  fellowship,"  was  to  sustain,  17; 
in  part,  17,  and  not  to  sustain,  4.  The  seventh  specification, 
charging  a  denial  of  "  Infant  Church  Membership,"  was 
sustained  by  the  following  vote :  to  sustain,  20 ;  in  part,  10, 
and  not  to  sustain,  8.  The  eighth  specification,  having  ref- 
erence to  "  the  admission  of  unbaptized  persons  to  church 
membership,"  was  also  sustained,  the  vote  being,  to  sustain, 
23;  in  part,  10,  and  not  to  sustain,  5. 

The  teachings  of  the  defendant  on  these  topics  are  ap- 
parently corollaries  of  his  theory  of  Organic  Union,  or  the 
combination  of  all  believers  in  one  Church,  without  refer- 
ence to  difterences  in  doctrine,  order  or  worship.  The 
Presbytery  does  not  regard  this  theory  as  either  established 
by  the  Scriptures  or  as  warranted  by  the  doctrine  of  our 


[175] 

Confession  respecting  the  communion  of  saints.  (Chap- 
ter 26.) 

In  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery,  the  defendant  has 
been  led  by  his  theory  into  exti*eme  positions  on  the  three 
special  topics  named.  And  while  the  establishing  of  these 
three  specifications  is  not  of  itself  sufficient  to  prove  the 
charges  of  disloyalty,  the  Presbytery  in  sustaining  these 
specifications  does  express  a  decisive  judgment  adverse  to 
the  opinions  thus  maintained.  We  believe  that  it  would 
be  dangerous  to  recognize  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  per- 
sons who  will  not  submit  to  so  plain  and  Scriptural  a  sac- 
rament as  baptism  should  not  be  admitted  into  the  visible 
Church.  We  believe  that,  whatever  diflacnlties  may  arise 
from  the  ambiguity  of  the  term  "  membership,"  as  applied 
to  infants,  there  is  a  just  and  precious  relation  or  connec- 
tion established  by  the  covenant  in  the  Christian  family  as 
a  divine  institution,  and  certified  by  baptism,  which  ought 
never  to  be  ignored  or  lightly  regarded  by  the  ministers  of 
our  Church,  We  hold  also  to  the  entire  Scriptural  legiti- 
macy of  separate  denominations,  such  as  our  own,  in  which 
peculiarities  of  doctrine  as  well  as  the  general  evangelical 
doctrine,  and  also  peculiarities  of  order  or  modes  of  wor- 
ship, may  be  recognized  and  maintained  without  impairing 
the  true  spiritual  unity  of  the  whole  Church  of  Christ.  We 
consequently  regard  the  limitation  of  ministerial  fellow- 
ship, so  far  as  organization  is  concerned,  as  being  entirely 
proper,  and  as  being  eminently  desirable.  The  views  of 
the  defendant  on  these  points  are  not  such  as  the  Presby- 
tery can  approve. 

In  view  of  the  teaching  of  our  Confession  of  Faith  as  to 
the  Communion  of  Saints  and  the  Sacraments,  we  regard 
the  expression  of  such  views  by  the  defendant  as  are  set 
forth  in  these  three  specifications  as  calculated  to  excite 
anxiety  and  distrust  in  the  minds  of  Christian  brethren, 
and  as  furnishing  ground  for  earnest  caution  against  all 
teaching  which  tends  to  induce  conflict  and  division  either 
within  our  own  circle  or  in  the  Church  at  large,  and  for 
solemn  counsel  to  wait  more  patiently  upon  the  leadings  of 


,   [i76] 

Divine  Providence  as  to  any  more  visible  union  of  the 
people  of  God. 

The  second  charge  is  one  of  disloyalty  in  conduct,  and 
is  made  to  rest  upon  two  specifications,  which  may  be 
briefly  summarized  as  (1)  confederating  with  others  in  ad- 
vocating and  promoting  "  the  new  anti-denominational 
association  of  Independent  '  Union  Christian  Churches  of 
America,'"  and  (2)  actively  co-operating  in  organizing  the 
Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Church. 

The  Presbytery,  by  a  vote  of  25  to  6,  with  7  in  part,  did 
not  sustain  the  first  specification.  The  court,  as  is  thus 
manifest,  failed  to  see  any  adequate  proof  of  unfaithfulness 
to  his  own  Church  in  the  labors  and  fellowship  of  the  de- 
fendant, with  various  other  parties,  in  publishing  papers, 
holding  conventions,  etc.,  in  the  interest  of  Christian  union. 
The  question  whether  such  affiliations  and  co-operations 
were  wise  is  very  different  from  the  question  whether  en- 
gaging in  them  is  evidence  of  a  spirit  of  disloyalty.  Even 
though  such  a  course  be  not  approved,  it  nevertheless  lies 
in  the  category  of  acts  where  individual  liberty  is  allowed 
and  ecclesiastical  authority  should  not  be  invoked.  It  has 
not  been  shown  that  the  defendant  intended  to  break  down 
the  denomination  to  which  he  had  honestly  declared  his 
allegiance;  or  that  he  had  entered  consciously  on  an  enter- 
prise the  ultimate  issue  of  which  was  the  revolutionary  sub- 
version of  all  existing  sects. 

The  second  specification  (relating  to  the  course  of  the 
defendant  in  connection  with  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout 
Church,  his  influence  in  its  organization,  and  his  installation 
as  pastor  of  the  same),  received  the  following  vote,  viz. : 
To  sustain,  7;  not  to  sustain,  12 ;  and  to  sustain  in  part,  18. 
The  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  on  this  second  point, 
therefore,  is  less  decisively  favorable  to  the  defendant  than 
in  reference  to  the  first.  It  is  in  evidence  that  the  defend- 
ant was  not  the  originator  of  this  church,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  such  organization  had  been  contemplated  some 
time  before  he  came  to  the  field.  It  is  clear  also  that  the 
original  intention  was  to  provide  for  the  religious  wants  of 
a  growing  community,  where  as  yet  no  one  denomination 


[  177  ] 

was  strong  enough  to  maintain  the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel. 
The  enterprise  had,  in  our  judgment,  no  connection  what- 
ever, at  least  in  its  earlier  stages,  with  what  is  called  the 
Christian  Union  movement.  Nor  is  there  any  clear  evi- 
dence that  the  defendant  intended  to  pervert  or  divert  it 
into  any  anti-denominational  use,  or  to  make  it  the  first 
step  in  a  process  of  destruction  of  existing  sects.  In  pub- 
lishing the  Basis  of  Fellowship,  and  accompanying  papers, 
preceding  the  call  of  the  Council,  he  did  not  intend  to 
make  the  church  responsible,  nor  did  the  church  ever  in- 
tend to  become  responsible  for  his  peculiar  opinions  therein 
contained. 

In  regard  to  the  defendant's  acceptance  of  and  entrance 
on  the  pastoral  office  in  this  church  without  the  consent  of 
the  Presbytery,  we  are  constrained  to  say  that  such  a  course 
can  not  be  regarded  in  any  other  light  than  as  an  irregu- 
larity. He  ought  to  have  consulted  with  and  obtained  the 
consent  of  the  Presbytery.  The  proper  course  for  all  mem- 
bers of  the  Presbytery  who  resign  or  accept  pastoral 
charges,  or  who  leave  the  ministry  for  any  other  profession, 
such  as  teaching  or  editing,  or  who  practically  devote 
themselves  to  any  form  of  secular  employment,  should  be 
obviously  to  obtain  permission  from  that  body  to  which 
primarily  their  official  allegiance  is  due.  This  is  a  proper 
part  of  that  submission  to  our  brethren  in  the  Lord  which 
we  have  individually  promised.  It  is  an  accountability  to 
which  every  loyal  minister  will,  on  consideration,  cheer- 
fully submit  himself,  and  while  we  regret  the  departure  in 
this  instance  from  a  rule,  the  propriety  of  which  is  so  obvi- 
ous, we  are  obliged  to  temper  our  judgment  with  mercy  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  rule  has  not  heretofore  been 
strictly  enforced.  Our  own  negligence  so  far  condones  the 
ofiense  as  to  render  it  unjust  in  us  to  inflict  censure  on  ac- 
count of  it  in  the  case  before  us. 

The  second  charge,  therefore,  of  disloyalty  in  conduct, 
the  Presbytery,  in  like  manner  as  with  the  first,  by  the  em- 
phatic vote  of  29  to  8,  regards  as  not  sustained ;  while  the 
vote  on  the  second  specification  of  the  same  shows  no  dis- 
position to  approve  the  irregularities  therein  mentioned. 


[178] 

And,  neither  charge  being  sustained,  the  defendant  stands 
acquitted  at  our  bar,  and  is  still  commended  to  the  churches 
as  a  brother  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  faithful  and  beloved. 
In  recording  thus  at  length  our  judgment  on  all  the 
points  specified  in  the  charges,  the  Presbytery  has  earnestly 
and  honestly  sought  to  know  the  truth  and  to  do  the  right. 
And  with  the  conviction  that  this,  our  finding,  is,  in  every 
substantial  particular,  according  to  justice,  both  to  the 
Church  and  to  the  defendant,  we  may  express  the  hope 
and  earnest  wish  that  it  will  also  be  promotive  of  peace, 
and  that  the  harmony  of  the  Church  at  large  may  not  be 
further  disturbed  by  the  appearance  of  this  case  in  any 
form  before  the  higher  courts. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

O.  A.  Hills, 

J.    P.    E.    KUMLER, 

J.  E.  Wright, 
Frederick  Dallas, 
John  Kennett, 

Committee. 


As  will  be  seen  from  the  above  minute,  the  Presbytery 
decided, 

1.  That  there  was  no  proof  adduced,  under  any  or  all  the 
Specifications,  to  show  disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
nor  contravention  of  ordination  vows,  nor  any  impairing  of 
our  system  of  doctrine,  nor  any  war  upon  the  Standards, 
nor  any  Common  Fame. 

2.  That  Specification  X,  under  Charge  I,  was  not  sus- 
tained, whereas  it  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  21  to  17. 

3.  That  the  Statute  of  Limitation  could  be  applied  to  bar 
process  against  a  continuous  offense  of  ten  years. 

4.  That  the  proofs  under  the  Specifications  ^'- not  sus- 
tained" were  no  competent  proofs  at  all. 

5.  That  the  Prosecution  "misapprehended"  the  opinions 
of  Mr.  McCune. 

6.  That  some  of  the  Specifications  were  "inferential," 
whereas  there  is  not  one  such  in  all  of  them. 


[  179  ] 

7.  That  the  "  Craighead  "  rule  operates  to  "  not  sustain  " 
the  fact  of  proven  language,  whereas  the  Assembly  used  it 
only  in  mitigation  of  judgment  upon  the  language  proved, 
giving  the  defendant  the  benefit  of  his  claimed  interpreta- 
tion, if  deemed  to  be  not  an  evasion. 

8.  That  in  all  Mr.  McCune  has  taught,  there  are  only  a 
few  expressions  to  be  deprecated,  but  nothing  whatever  to 
show  any  disloyalty. 

9.  That  the  Specifications  which  they  did  sustain  are 
"corollaries"  of  "  his  theory  of  Organic  Union,"  and  at 
the  same  time  voted  that  there  was  no  proof  to  show  that 
he  held  any  such  theory,  and  that  there  was  no  Common 
Fame  about  it.  And  yet  again,  that  he  did  hold  such  a 
theory,  while  they  voted  down  the  Specifications  which  as- 
sert that  he  held  it.  And  still,  again,  that  his  theory  and 
corollaries  merit  a  "decisive,  adverse  judgment"  because 
they  are  "  dangerous,"  and  are  "  not  such  as  Presbytery  can 
approve,"  being  "  calculated  to  excite  anxiety  and  distrust," 
tending  "  to  induce  conflict  and  division,"  and  deserving 
"  solemn  counsel,"  and  yet  are  no  evidence  of  any  disloy- 
alty, and  were  allowed  to  pass  without  even  an  admonition. 

10.  That  there  is  no  evidence  to  prove  that  Mr.  McCune 
was  the  originator  of  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  Church 
in  the  shape  it  took,  as  charged  in  the  Specifications,  and 
that  in  all  his  course  herein  he  was  guilty  of  only  a  little 
pardonable  irregularity. 

11.  That  he  is  a  faithful,  sound,  loyal,  unimpeached  Pres- 
byterian minister,  worthy  of  commendation,  and  that  the 
Presbytery's  "  own  negligence  "  of  its  duty,  for  years  past, 
makes  it  improper  for  it  to  censure  anything  he  has  said  or 
done,  and  this  it  declares  to  be  a  finding  according  to  jus- 
tice, both  to  the  Church  and  defendant,  and  promotive  of 
peace. 


'^ 


JUDICIAL  OPINION, 


'''^''ii'diwu-'-'i^ 


IN  THE  CASE  OF 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH 


veh&vs 


The  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune. 


DELIVERED 


IN    THE    PRESBYTERY     OE    CINCINNATI 


ONLY  IN  PART,  FOR  WANT  OF  TIME, 


JVL-A-iaOH    22,    1877. 


/ 
By  the  Rey.  LEANDER  H.  LONG, 

Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  Lebanon,  Ohio. 


CINCINNATI: 

PRINTED    BY  THE    GAZETTE   COMPANY. 
1877. 


JUDICIAL  OPINION. 


May  it  please  the  Moderator  and  Members  of  the  Court : 

The  Committee  of  Prosecution,  and  the  defendant,  will  excuse  me 
in  not  wasting  time  in  the  way  of  indulging  in  complimentary  ex- 
pressions toward  them,  for  their  deportment  during  the  progress  of 
this  trial,  as  it  is  our  desire,  to  get  at  the  case  at  once.  In  my 
sympathies,  if  I  have  any,  one  way  or  the  other,  I  might  be  presumed 
to  be  with  the  defendant,  as  he  and  I  were  born,  baptized,  trained, 
educated,  licensed,  and  ordained  in  the  good  old  psalm-singing,  close 
communion  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church.  By  her,  our 
mother,  we  were,  when  young,  nourished  on  the  sincere  milk  of  the 
Word,  and  as  we  grew  in  stature,  we  were  given  the  strong  meat  of  her 
feith,  and  her  order,  so  that  I  would  have  supposed  that  the  defendant, 
from  the  training  he  received  in  the  old  church,  would  have  been  of 
full  age,  and  by  reason  of  use  would  have  had  his  senses  exercised,  at 
the  time  he  changed  his  ecclesiastical  connection  and  became  a  minister 
in  the  church,  which  now  complains  of  him,  to  have  discerned,  that 
the  doctrines,  principles  and  views,  advocated  by  him,  as  he  says,  for 
the  last  twenty  years,  are  at  war  with  her  standards,  and  if  generally 
accepted,  Avould  totally  subvert  her  constitution,  and  destroy  her  very 
existence  as  a  Presbyterian  denomination. 

Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren  of  the  court,  there  are  three  elements 
in  this  case,  and  only  three:  the  law,  under  which  the  defendant  is 
being  tried,  the  charge,  upon  which  he  is  being  tried,  and  the  proof, 
upon  which  the  charges,  and  specifications  are  to  be  sustained;  and  it  is 
a  mere  waste  of  time,  a  useless  expenditure  of  brain  power,  to  look  at 
anything  beyond  these  elements  of  the  case,  in  the  trial  of  the  case, 
and  our  solemn  obligation,  as  an  ecclesiastical  court,  limits  us  to  a  fair 
and  impartial  consideration  of  the  law,  the  charge,  and  the  proof — 
these,  and  nothing  more. 

The  law  to  which  the  defendant  is  amenable,  and  under  which  he  is 
now  being  tried,  what  is  it?     It  seems  to  me  that  there  has  been  on 


this  branch  of  the  case  some  confusion  of  tongues,  and  it  may  be,  that 
my  tongue  may  only  add  to  the  bable.  We  will  endeavor,  however, 
to  find  out  just  what  the  hiw  is,  so  that  in  the  trial  we  may  do  justice 
to  the  complainant,  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  no  injustice  to  the 
defendant.  The  law  under  which  the  defendant  is  being  tried  is  not 
the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  for  he  is  not  charged 
W'ith  disloyalty  to  these.  It  is  not  the  law  as  set  forth  in  the  basis 
agreed  upon  by  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  for  he  is  not  charged  with 
not  being  true  to  this  basis  of  evangelical  truth.  It  is  not  the  law  as 
embodied  in  what  is  called  the  Auburn  declaration,  for  he  is  not 
charged  with  not  being  in  accord  with  this  deliverance.  It  is  not  the 
law  as  found  in  anything  that  a  Dr.  Hodge,  or  Knox,  or  Crosby,  or 
Thomas,  or  Skinner,  may  have  said,  or  written  on  the  subject  of 
Christian  Union,  Organic  Union,  or  any  other  kind  of  union,  for  he  is 
not  charged  with  not  being  in  harmony  with  these  distinguished 
divines.  It  is  not  the  law,  which  some  members  of  the  court  claim, 
has  been  given  by  Dr.  Hodge,  who  is  represented  in  defining  the 
system  of  doctrine  contained  in  our  standards,  as  cutting  in  two  that 
system,  presenting  the  one  part  as  being  essential,  and  the  other  not 
essential  to  the  system,  for  he  is  not  charged  with  not  being  in  accord 
with  this  mutilated  system,  that  is  claimed  to  be  the  work  of  the 
great  Princeton  Professor  as  to  what  the  system  of  doctrine  is,  that  is 
received  and  adopted,  when  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  are  laid  upon 
our  heads.  The  defendant  is  not  being  tried  under  any  of  these  laws, 
but  under  the  law,  to  wit :  the  system  of  doctrine  and  polity  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  contained  in  the  confession  of  faith  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  This  is  the  law,  to  which  he  as  a  Presbyterian 
minister  is  amenable  for  having  received  and  adopted  it  sincerely, 
which  he  says  he  has,  and  no  one  questions  it,  he  is  now  under  charge 
of  not  being  true  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  that  he  is  not  true  in 
his  teaching  and  practice  to  the  faith  and  polity  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  contained  in  her  confession  of  faith,  and  upon  this  charge  the 
trial  is  proceeding ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  this  is  not  clearly  appre- 
hended by  some  members  of  the  court,  else  we  had  had  less  oratorical 
girations  round  and  about  the  case,  being  careful  not  to  come  in  actual 
collision  with  the  case,  at  any  time. 

But  there  is  some  trouble  as  to  what  the  system  of  doctrine  taught 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  contained  in  the  confession  of  faith  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  is.  Here  again,  there  seems  to  be  a  confusion  of 
tongues,  when  there  is  no  necessity  for  it.  In  listening  to  some  of  my 
brother  members  of  the  court,  it  seemed  to  me  that  the  system  of 
doctrine,  in  their  judgment,  is  a  kind  of  system  within  a  system,  a 


wheel  within  a  wheel,  a  shell  and  a  kernal  within,  and  to  get  at  the 
exact  thing,  the  system  to  be  received  and  adopted,  we  must  take  off  the 
outer  system  and  receive  the  inner  system,  remove  the  outer  wheel  and 
adopt  the  inner  wheel,  break  the  shell  and  find  in  the  kernal  wnthin, 
the  faith  and  polity  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  What  brilliant 
nonsense!  Here  we  might  inquire  as  did  one  of  old,  "Who  is  this 
that  darkeneth  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge." 

"System  of  doctrine,"  what  does  this  mean?  It  means  that  the  sys- 
tem, is  a  system,  not  of  figures,  or  fancies,  or  follies,  but  of  doctrines. 
The  doctrines,  then,  of  the  system  is  the  system  itself,  and  to  know  what 
these  doctrines  are  we  go  to  the  system  that  coi tains  and  enumerates 
them,  and  here  we  find  enumerated  thirty-three  distinct  and  well 
defined  doctrines,  and  these  thirty-three  doctrines  make  up  "  this 
system  of  doctrine,"  that  cliaracterizes  and  distinguishes  the  Presby- 
terian body,  from  every  other  ecclesiastical  organization  under  tlie  sun. 
Now,  when  w'e  receive  and  adopt  the  "system  of  doctrine,"  what  do 
we  receive  and  adopt?  why  the  thirty-three  doctrines  contained  in, 
and  which  make  up  this  system,  and  from  wdiich,  if  you  should 
strike  out  a  single  one  of  the  thirty-three,  it  would  not  then  be  the 
system  of  doctrine,  which  has  been  received  and  adopted  from  the  be- 
ginning, by  every  minister  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  must  not 
be  forgotten,  that  the  "  system  of  doctrine  "  in  question,  with  its 
thirty-three  specific  chapters,  is  the  "s3^stem  of  doctrine'  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  that  the  whole  thirty-three  are  essential, 
not  to  salvation,  for  all  are  not,  but  are  essential  to  the  Presbyterian 
system  of  doctrine,  which  the  Presbyterian  Church  believes  is  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Dr.  Hodge  has  been  appealed  to,  to  settle  this  (luestion,  as  to  what 
the  "system  of  doctrine"  is,  that  is  received  and  adopted,  by  the  party 
upon  whose  head,  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  are  laid  in  his  ordina- 
tion. Just  as  if  Dr.  Hodge  had  taught,  or  could  teach,  that  some  other 
"system  of  doctrine,"  other  than  the  thirty-three  doctrines  contained 
in  the  confession  of  faith,  is  received  and  adopted  upon  induction  into 
the  ministerial  office  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Dr.  Hodge  has 
told  us  just  what  the  system  of  doctrine  is,  tiiat  it  embraces  just  the 
thirty-three  chapters  contained  in  the  confession,  no  more  and  no  less, 
and  then  he  tells  us  ju,st  what  he  ought  to  tell  us,  :md  what  every 
one  ought  to  know,  without  being  told  by  Dr.  Hodge  or  any  other 
Gamaliel,  that  some  twenty  of  these  doctrines  of  the  system  are  pecu- 
liar and  controverted,  while  the  remainder  are  not  peculiar  and  not  con- 
troverted, and  from  this  distinction  which  the  Dr.  draws  between  the 
peculiar  and  t.he  non-peculiar,  the  controverted  and  the  non-contro- 


verted  doctrines  of  the  system,  some  members  of  the  court,  and  some 
of  these,  the  former  students  of  the  old  Princetonian  Professor  have 
drawn,  without  any  warrant,  as  we  think,  the  conchision,  that  his 
distinetioitof  peculiar  and  non-peculiar,  controverted  and  non-contro- 
verted, is  a  distinction  of  what  is  essential  to  the  system  and  what  is 
not,  that  some  twenty  of  its  doctrines  are  essential,  and  that  the 
remainder  are  not,  and  therefore,  in  receiving  and  adopting  the  system, 
we  receive  and  adopt  what  is  essential  to  the  system,  and  assume  no 
obligation  to  what  is  non-essential  to  the  system.  As  to  this,  all  we  have 
to  say,  is,  that  those  brethren  of  the  court  who  have  made  Dr.  Hodge 
teach  a  something  that  he  never  did  teach,  had  better  not  go  to  him, 
and  say  to  his  face,  what  they  have  said  here  behind  his  back.  What? 
Dr.  Hodge  throw  out  of  the  "system  of  doctrine"  of  the  Presbyter- 
ian Church,  as  not  being  essential  to  the  system,  some  thirteen  doc- 
trines, among  which  are  the  doctrines  of  worship,  the  Sabbath,  oaths 
and  vows,  the  church,  communion  of  saints,  baptism,  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  last  judgment —  never. 
This  will  certainly  be  news  to  him,  as  he  certainly  has  not  done  any 
such  thing,  at  any  time,  or  anywhere. 

But  in  claiming  that  the  system  of  doctrine  is  the  same  as  the 
thirty-three  chapters  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  confession,  do  we 
claim  at  the  same  time,  that  every  sentence  and  clause  is  to  be  assented 
to,  at  ordination,  when  the  system  is  received  and  adopted?  By  no 
means,  for  a  sentence,  or  clause,  or  proposition,  found  in  one  or  more  of 
the  thirty-three  chapters  of  the  system,  may  be  stricken  out  without 
the  slightest  injury  to  the  chaptfer  or  chapters  from  which  they  may 
be  cast  out,  and  when  thrown  out,  the  system  with  its  thirty-three 
doctrines  will  remain  as  a  system  intact,  and  without  any  impairment' 
of  its  integrity. 

The  law  under  which  the  defendant  is  being  tried,  being  the  system 
of  doctrine,  and  the  system  of  polity,  contained  in  the  confession  of 
faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  which  she  believes  to  be  taught  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  we  now  proceed  to  look  at  the  charge,  which  is  the 
second  element  in  the  case,  and  which  is  set  forth  in  the  two  following 
declarations : 

"  That  the  Rev.  W,  C.  McCune,  being  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Cincinnati,  has,  for  years  past,  in  contravention  of  his  vows 
of  loyalty  to  the  distinctive  faith  and  order  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
as  also  in  opposition  to  the  terms  of  the  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical 
Basis  of  Union  adopted,  unanimously,  by  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati 
(O.  S.),  at  Avondale,  September  8,  1869,  Mr.  McCune  being  present 


and  voting  for  the  same,  and  adopted  by  the  whole  Presbyterian 
Church  (O.  S.  and  N.  S.),  and  in  joint  convention  November  12,  18&9, 
declared  as  of  binding  force,  openly  proclaimed  and  persistently 
advocated  doctrines,  principles,  and  views,  not  only  at  war  with  the 
standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  but,  if  generally  accepted, 
totally  subversive  of  its  constitution,  and  of  the  very  existence  of  the 
Presbyterian  denomination  itself." 

"That  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  being  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  the  United  States  of  Amferica,  and  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Cincinnati,  has,  in  contravention  of  his  vows  of  loyalty  to 
the  distinctive  government  and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  for  the  publicly  avowed  purpose  of  carrying  into  practical  effect 
the  doctrines,  principles  and  views  specified  under  Charge  I,  been 
instrumental  in  advising,  promoting  and  encouraging  the  new  Anti- 
denominational  Association  of  the  "Union  Christian  Churches  of 
America;  "  aufj,  also,  tlie  new  anti-denominational  organization  at 
Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout,  founded  on  these  doctrines,  principles 
and  views,  his  course  herein  being,  if  generally  allowed,  totally 
subversive  of  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  of  its 
very  existence  as  a  distinctive  denomination.'' 

The  charge  or  the  offense  always  relates  to  the  law,  and  were  not 
the  system  of  doctrine,  and  the  system  of  polity,  contained  in  the 
confession  of  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  law  to  govern  her 
ministers  in  what  they  teach,  and  do,  then,  there  could  be  no  charge 
against  the  defendant.  But  this  being  the  law  of  the  church,  and  pub- 
lished as  her  system  of  doctrine,  and  as  her  form  of  government,  book  of 
discipline  and  directory  for  worship,  the  defendant  then  stands  charged 
with  "disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,"  and  pray  what  does 
this  mean?  Why  simply,  that  having  upon  his  ordinati'on  and  installa- 
tion in  a  Presbyterian  pastorate,  assumed  the  obligation  to  preach  the 
faith  and  practice  the  polity  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  set  forth 
in  her  standards,  he  has  turned  away  from  this  faith  and  this  polity, 
and  advocated  doctrines,  principles,  and  views,  which  are  claimed  to 
be,  not  only  at  war  with  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
but,  if  generally  accepted,  totally  subversive  of  its  constitution. 

This  teaching,  and  this  practice,  is  called  by  the  Committee  of 
Prosecution,  "disloyalty,"'  and  thecommittee  has  been  severely  criticised 
for  thus  characterizitig  the  offense  as  "disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church,"  as  the  offense  of  the  defendant,  if  he  be  guilty  of  any  offense 
does  not  reach,  as  it  is  said,  1o  that  height  of  infamy  which  the  term  dis- 
loyalty conveys,  and  of  which,  if  he  should  be  convicted,  he  would  deserve 
to  be  hung  higher  than  Hajman.    It  matters  little,  we  apprehend,  what 


the  caption  of  the  offense  is,  or  what  terms  are  employed  to  indicate  it, 
if  the  caption,  or  the  terms,  truly  express  the  nature  of  the  offense. 
Does  the  term  disloyalty  truly  do  this  ?  Let  us  see :  disloyalty  can 
never  be  predicated  of  any  one,  except  that  one  is  owing  allegiance, 
and  then"  it  can  only  be  charged  against  that  one,  as  that  one  has 
ignored  or  broken  his  allegiance.  Now,  in  this  case,  the  defendant  owed 
allegiance  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  having  received  and  adopted 
her  confession  of  faith,  and  having  approved  of  her  government  and 
discipline;  and  having  done  this,  he  is  charged  with  advocating 
doctrines,  principles,  and  views,  at  war  with  her  standards,  and 
tending  to  the  destruction  of  her  constitution,  and  existence  as  a 
denomination,  and  this  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  have  called 
"disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church;"  and,  now,  is  this  a  misnomer? 
We  think  not,  but  the  very  term  that  expresses  more  fully,  perhaps, 
than  any  other  term  could  possibly  do,  the  nature  of  the  offense, 
with  which  the  defendant  stands  charged.  Still,  the  committee  might 
have  said  in  speaking  of  the  offense  of  the  defendant,  that  he  had  not 
been  true  to  his  ministerial  allegiance,  or  that  as  a  minister  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  he  had  not  been,  and  was  not  now  in  accord  with 
her  faith  and  polity,  which  would  have  been  saying  precisely  the  same 
thing  which  they  do  say,  when  they  express  it  as  disloyalty  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  But  why  waste  time  in  answer  to  a  mere  quibble 
about  the  terra  the  committee  have  used  to  express  the  nature  of  the 
offense  charged  upon  the  defendant  ?     Let  us  proceed. 

Here  let  us  inquire  into  the  extent  of  the  obligation  assumed  by 
the  defendant,  when  he,  by  the  reception  and  adoption  of  the  Presby- 
terian standards,  became  a  minister  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The 
committee  call  this  obligation  a  solemn  vow,  and  for  this  they  are 
promptly  criticised,  and  for  other  things  said  and  done  by  them,  until 
sometimes  we  were  in  doubt,  as  to  who  was  the  culprit — the  committee 
or  the  defendant..  The  committee,  say  the  defenders  of  the  defendant, 
should  have  spoken  of  his  obligation  simply  as  a  promise,  and  not  as  a 
solemn  vow,  seeming  to  intimate  that  to  violate  a  solemn  vow,  is  a 
much  greater  offense  than  to  violate  a  solemn  promise.  Well, 
call  it  what  you  may,  a  promise  or  a  vow,  a  solemn  promise  or  a 
solemn  vow,  it  is,  in  itself,  of  the  nature  of  an  obligation,  assumed  in 
the  sight  of  God  and  before  men,  and  is,  therefore,  an  intensely  solemn 
thing,  be  it  the  one  or  the  other — a  solemn  vow  or  a  solemn  promise, 
and  when  broken,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  disloyalty  to  the  person 
or  thing  to  whom,  or  to  what  the  alliegiance  was  due,  and,  as  in  this 
case,  it  was  due  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  defendant  having  re- 
ceived and  adopted  her  standards  of  faith  and  polity,  he  is,  therefore, 


in  departing  from  this  faith  and  this  polity,  if  it  be  true  that  he  has, 
properly  chargeable  with  "disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church." 
But,  let  us  leave  this  quibble  and  hair-splitting  of  the  defense  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  obligation  assumed  by  the  defendant,  and  proceed, 
for  what  we  wanUrto  get  at  just  now,  is,  the  extent  of  the  vow  or  the 
promise,  which  he  made  when  he  become  a  minister  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church. 

The  extent  of  the  obligation  is  seen  in  this,  that  in  the  ordination, 
as  well  as  in  the  pastoral  installation  of  any  one  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  affirmative  answers  are  made  to  the  following  questions  : 
"Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  confession  of  faith  of  this 
church,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  ?  "  "  Do  you  approve  of  the  government  and  discipline  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  these  United  States  ? "  This  obligation 
now  relates  to  all  that  is  distinctive  and  peculiar  in  the  faith  of  the 
church,  and  in  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  church,  to  all 
that  distinguishes  the  Presbyterian  Church  from  any  other  church,  to 
all  that  is  denominational  in  her,  as  well  as  to  all  that  is  evangelical 
in  her.  It  is  an  obligation  to  honestly  preach  the  faith,  keep  the  order, 
and  enforce  the  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  And  how  well 
the  defendant  may,  or  may  not  have  done  this,  we  will  see,  when  we 
come  to  look  at  the  proof. 

Now,  in  answer  to  this,  it  is  said  by  a  number  of  the  members  of 
the  court,  that  the  obligation  taken,  has  nothing  in  it,  binding  the  in- 
dividual assuming  it,  never  to  change  his  views ;  and,  then,  to  fix  and 
fasten  this  idea,  our  brother  member  of  the  court,  Ritchey,  tells  us 
that  the  only  two  aijimals  who  are  never  known  to  change  their  views, 
are  a  fool  and  a  mule.  Is  this  so  ?  and  if  so,  that  a  man  who  never 
changes  his  views,  is  either  a  fool  or  a  mule,  what  kind  of  an  animal 
must  that  man  be — a  fool  or  a  mule— who,  having  changed  his  views, 
then  refuses  to  change  his  relations,  so  as  to  be  in  his  relations  con- 
sistent with  his  views  ?  Will  the  brother  answer  ?  It  has  been  said, 
too,  in.  defense  of  the  defendant,  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  a 
church  of  liberty ;  why,  certainly  it  is.  A  more  liberal  church  is 
nowhere  to  be  found.  She  binds  no  man's  conscience.  She  compels 
no  man  to  come  into  her  ;  and  she  forces  no  man  to  remain  in  her 
contrary  to  his  will.  Her  invitation  to  those  who  would  be  ministers 
in  her,  is,  if  any  man  will,  let  him  come  and  receive  and  adopt  the 
standards  of  her  faith  and  her  order,  and,  as  long  as  he  remains  true 
to  these,  he  is  at  liberty  to  remain ;  but,  when  he  fails  in  his  fidelity 
to  these  standards,  he  is  at  liberty  to  go  out  of  her,  and  no  man  will 
seek  to  compel  him,  to  remain  in  her.     Is  not  this  liberty  enough  ? 


10 

The  liberty  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  the  liberty  of  law  ;  the 
liberty  of  her  standards,  and  not  the  liberty  to  do  whatsoever  seemeth 
right  in  the  eyes  of  any  one.  Not  the  liberty  to  openly  and  persist- 
ently advocate  doctrines,  principles,  and  views,  not  only  at  war  with 
her  standards,  but,  if  generally  accepted,  would  totally  subvert  her 
constitution  and  destroy  her  denominational  existence.  This,  cer- 
tainly, is  not  the  liberty,  which  my  brother  members  of  the  court 
claim  may  be  exercised  by  Presbyterian  ministers,  for  this  would  be 
nothing  more,  nor  less  than  the  commission  of  denominational  suicide, 
and  this,  is  not  what  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  prepared  to  do  just 
now. 

Having  seen  what  the  law  of  the  case  is,  to  wit :  The  standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  her  system  of  doctrine,  her  form  of  govern- 
ment, her  book  of  discipline,  her  directory  for  worship,  all  contained, 
or  set  forth  in  her  confession  of  faith,  and  having  seen  what  the  charge 
in  the  case  is,  to  wit :  "Disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,"  in  this, 
that  the  defendant  had  been  for  many  years  past,  openly  and  persist- 
ently, advocating  doctrines,  principles,  and  views,  not  only  at  war 
with  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  but,  if  generally  ac- 
cepted, would  totally  subvert  her  constitution  and  destroy  her  exist- 
ence as  a  denomination ;  we  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  proof 
in  the  case,  in  its  application  under  the-law  to  this  charge 

The  charge  is  presented  under  two  forms,  so  as  to  make  two  charges, 
the  one  relating  to  the  faith  of  the  church,  and  the  other  to  the  polity 
of  the  church,  and  these  charges  are  exhibited  under  thirteen  speci- 
fications, eleven  pertaining  to  the  first  charge,  and  two  pertaining  to 
the  second  charge,  and  each  and  every  specification  is  accompanied 
with  tlxe  proof  which  is  relied  upon  to  sustain  them,  and  the  charges, 
and  iniless  there  is  something  in  the  proof,  adduced  by  the  defendant, 
to  nullify  the  proof  adduced  by  the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  every 
specification  under  both  charges  must  certainly  be  maintained. 

To  understand  the  proof  in  its  application  to  the  truth  of  the  speci- 
fications under  the  charges  against  the  defendant,  we  must,  if  we  can, 
clearly  un'derstand  just  what  the  defendant  has  taught,  and  has  done, 
being  at  the  same  time  a  minister  in  our  Presbyterial  denomination. 
What  he  has  taught,  and  done,  has  been  called  a  scheme,  a  system,  a 
theory;  and  now,  what  is  this,  his  scheme,  system  or  theory? 

It  IS,  so  far  as  we  can  gather  it  from  his  teaching  and  practice,  that 
a  denomination,  so  far  as  it  is  evangelical  in  its  faith  and  in  its  polity, 
is  authorized,  is  scriptural,  and  has  a  right  to  exist,  but  in  so  far  as  it 
is  denominational,  it  is  unauthorized,  wholly  unscriptural,  and  has  no 
right  to  exist.     His  theory  is,  that  there  may  not  be,  in  or  about  a 


11 

Christian  church,  anything  of  the  nature  of  denominational  law,  or 
denominational  enactments,  or  if  there  be,  this  law,  or  these  enact- 
ments, while  they  may  be  preached,  must  not  be  in  any  case  enforced. 
If  this  be  his  scheme  or  theory,  and  we  think  it  is,  and  if  we  have  not 
misrepresented  the  defendant  in  stating  his  scheme,  or  theory,  and  we 
think  we  have  not,  then  his  scheme,  or  theory,  obliges  him  to  teach, 
and  to  do,  the  very  things  which  he  is  charged,  with  teaching  and  do- 
ing in  the  specifications,  under  the  charges  against  him.  And  to  be 
consistent  with  his  scheme,  or  theory,  is  to  be  utterly  inconsistent  with 
the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  heretofore  received  and 
adopted  by  him. 

Let  us  now  go  to  the  proof,  accompany  each  specification,  carefully 
examine  it,  and  see  whether  what  is  cited  against  the  defendant  in  the 
specifications,  as  being  taught  and  done  by  him,  and  as  being  contrary 
to  the  faith  and  polity  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  sustained  by  the 
proof. 

The  first  specification  is,  "As  to  the  Divine  Law  of  Organization  for 
the  Christian  Church,  in  this,  that  the  Divine  Law  of  Organization  for 
the  Christian  Church ;  in  all  time,  is  found  in  Romans  xv.  7,  and  not 
only  forbids  the  existence  of  difierent  evangelical  denominations,  as 
such,  and  any  exclusion  of  Christian  members  or  ministers  in  one 
denomination  from  full  fellowship  in  another,  but  requires  oneness  of 
visible  external  organization,  and  immediate  preparation  for  the  reor- 
ganization of  the  Presbyterian  and  whole  Christian  Church  on  a  New 
Testament  basis  ;  moreover,  according  to  this  law,  the  church  may 
cut  off  from  its  communion  no  one  who  is  not,  first  of  all,  assumed,  or 
proved,  to  be  unregenerate." 

And  now,  what  is  the  proof  that  he  has  taught  the  above  ?  The 
proof  is  this,  for  the  defendant  says,  "we  are  convinced  that  we  find 
the  law  requiring  visible  union  iji  Romans  xv.  7,  as  well  as  in  other  scrip- 
tures," "  that  the  New  Testament  forbids  denominational  divisions 
and  requires  visible  union,"  and  this  is  the  same  as  organic  oneness, 
"  that  God  calls  upon  all  Christ's  disciples  to  make  immediate  prepara- 
ti(m  for  a  united  New  Testament  organization  of  the  church  in  every 
place,"  and  "  that  were  it  not  for  sectarian  managers,  and  placemen. 
Christian  hearts,  now  separated  by  mere  human  sectarian  walls,  would 
gladly  unite  in  visible  union,"  or  in  organic  oneness.  Es  this,  the  faith 
as  taught  by  the  defendant,  the  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ? 
Is  this  the  gospel  which  the  Presbytery,  when  it  laid  its  hands  upon 
his  head,  in  his  ordination,  authorized  and  directed  him  to  preach? 
Is  this,  to  wit,  organic  oneness,  found  anywhere  in  the  system  of  doc- 
trine of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  received  and  adopted  by  the 
defendant,  upon  his  installation  into  a  Presbyterian  pastorate  ? 


12 

That  such  teaching  is  at  war  with  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  we  shall  not  stop  to  show,  for  we  are  speaking  to  those  who 
are  familiar  with  the  standards,  and  who  must  therefore  know  that  it 
is  not,  and  the  court  will  therefore  vote,  and  certainly  can  not  vote 
otherwise,  than  to  sustain  the  first  specification. 

The  second  specification  is,  "As  to  the  essential  sinfulness  of  the  Presby- 
terian and  all  other  existing  evangelical  denominations  as  such. — In  this,  that 
the  Presbyterian  and  all  other  evangelical  denominations,  as  such,  i.  e., 
in  their  peculiar  character  as  distinct  organizations,  apart  from  their 
common  Christianity,  and  framed  by  denominational  law  to  maintain 
and  enforce  their  peculiar  and  distinctive  creed  as  to  doctrine  and 
polity,  are  essentially  sinful,  are  not  churches,  and  have  no  scriptural 
right  to  exist. 

The  proof  under,  and  intended  to  sustain  this  second  specification, 
what  is  it?  The  defendant  says  that  "denominational  divisions  in  the 
church'  are  wholly  destitute  of  scrii^tural  authority."  "We  have  a 
clear,  profound  conviction  that  denominational  divisions  are  unscrip- 
tural."  "  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Presbyterian  Churches  are  Christian 
Union  organizations,  I  believe  they  ought  to  be."  "  I  condemn  sec- 
tarianism as  essentially  sinful,"  and  what  the  defendant  means  here  by 
sectarianism  is  denominational  law,  or  enactment,  and  its  enforcement, 
and  this  is  essentially  sinful.  It  is  enough  just  here  simply  to  inquire 
whether  anything  of  this  kind  is  found  anywhere  in  the  standards  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  received  and  adopted  by  the  defendant.  If  it  is, 
then  we  have  sadly  misapprehended,  what  is  contained  in  the  standards 
of  our  church.  The  issue  is  not  what  the  standards  ought  to  be,  not 
what  they  ought  to  contain,  but  is  organic  oneness  a  doctrine  in  otir 
system  of  doctrine,  and  if  not,  and  as  it  is  not,  then  the  doctrine,  the 
princij>le,  the  view  of  organic  oneness  as  taught  by  the  defendant, 
under  this  second  specification,  is  not  only  at  war  with  the  standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  but  if  generally  accepted  would  totally 
subvert  her  presbyterial  or  constitutional  existence,  and  the  court  will 
therefore,  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  question,  sustain  this  second 
specification  ;    and  so  let  us  pass  to  the  third. 

The  thii'd  specification,  is,  As  to  the  sinfulness  of  Framing  and  Requiring 
Assent  to  Human  Creeds. — In  this,  that  everything  distinctive  in  creeds 
should  be  given  up,  or  struck  out,  and  no  human  inference  or  deduction 
from  divine  truth  be  allowed;  that  the  Bible  itself  is  an  all-sufficient 
and  the  only  proper  creed  for  all  time ;  that  the  construction  of  an 
extended  creed,  beyond  the  Scripture  statement  of  a  few  leading 
doctrines,  the  most,  otherwise  discordant,  will  accept,  is  a  usurpation 
of  the  divine  prerogative,  and  the  enforcement  of  distinctive  tenets 
upon  the  official  ministry,  an  oppression  of  the  conscience." 


13 

The  defendant  is  not  opposed  to  a  creed.  It  is  only  the  length  of 
the  creed  that  he  strikes  at.  It  is  what  it  should  contain  that  he  con- 
tends fpr.  He  is  as  much  in  favor  of  a  creed  as  any  of  us,  but  our 
creed — to  wit:  the  creed  of  the  Presbyterian  Church — is  not  his  creed. 
He  takes  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  system  of 
doctrine,  the  form  of  government,  the  book  of  discipline,  the  directory 
for  worship,  all  of  which  make  up  her  creed,  and  strikes  out  of  it  all 
human  inferences  or  deductions  from  divine  truth,  strikes  out  of  it  all 
Scripture  statements,  except  a  few  leading  doctrines  ;  and,  having  done 
this,  then,  pray  tell  me,  what  is  left  of  our  denominational  existence. 
Here  let  me  say,  that  among  the  members  of  this  court  we  seem  to 
hear  an  uncertain  sound  on  the  subject  of  creeds  ;  a  confounding  of  the 
Bible  with  a  creed,  and  a  creed  with  the  Bible.  The  Bible  is  not  a 
creed,  nor  is  a  creed  the  Bible.  AVhat,  then,  is  the  Bible,  and  what 
is  a  creed  ?  The  Bible  is  God's  Word,  and  is  contained  in  the  sixty- 
six  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  just  as  our  system  of  doc- 
trine is  contained  in  the  thirty-three  chapters  of  our  confession  of 
faith,  and  this  Bible,  God,  by  inspiration,  gave  to  all  men,  to  be  the 
infallible  rule  of  their  faith  and  life.  Now,  a  creed  is  just  our  under- 
standing of  what  the  Bible  teaches  on  any  given  subject,  and  this  un- 
derstanding is  expressed  in  human  language;  and,  therefore,  a  creed 
is  a  human  thing,  in  contradistinction  to  God's  Word,  or  the  Bible, which 
is  a  divine  thing. '  The  creed,  therefore,  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is 
not  the  Bible,  nor  is  the  Bible  the  creed  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
nor  of  any  other  church  on  earth.  If,  then,  the  Bible  be  not  our 
creed,  nor  our  creed  the  Bible,  what  is  the  latter  in  contradistinction 
to  the  former?  The  former  remains  to  us  as  a  church,  and  to  all 
churches  as  well  as  to  all  individuals,  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  ;  while  the  latter,  our  creed,  remains  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church  as  her  understanding  of  what  the  Bible  teaches  concerning 
doctrine,  government,  discipline  and  ivorship  in .  the  house  and  family  of 
God.  Were  it  a  new,  or  original  question,  as  to  how  long  or  how  short 
our  creed  ought  to  be,  what  it  ought,  or  ought  not  to  contain,  as  com- 
pared with  what  it  now  embodies,  we  might  change  and  modify  it, 
might  strike  out  many  things  now  in  it,  and  put  many  things  in  it 
that  are  not  now  in  it.  But,  this  is  not  a  question  in  this  trial,  and 
we  may,  thei'efore,  not  dwell  upon  it.  The  question  of  the  trial  is, 
under  this  third  specification,  has  the  defendant,  on  the  subject  of 
creeds,  taught  a  doctrine,  advocated  a  principle,  maintained  a  view, 
which,  if  generally  accepted,  would  destroy  our  denominational  life? 
What  has  he  taught  on  the  subject  of  creeds  which  is  at  war  with  the 
standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church?     His  teaching  is,  "  Uhat  a  sec- 


14 

tarian  creed"  (that  is,  a  denominational  creed)  "is  always  mischievous 
and  sinful;  "  that  "  every  matter  in  our  creed,  which  our  fellow  Chris- 
tians of  other  churches  can  not  see  to  be  law  in  Scripture,  should  be 
stricken  out;"  that  "  the  churches  of  Christ  ought  to  have  no  au- 
thorized creed  or  discipline  but  the  Holy  Scriptures."  We  need  quote 
the  proof  no  further,  for  this  is  enough ;  and  with  this  proof  under  the 
tliird  specification,  standing  as  it  does  unimpeached  and  unimpaired, 
the  court  must,  of  necessity,  and  will  sustain  the  specification. 

The  fourth  specification  is,  ''As  to  OrdinationVoivs.— In  this,  that  Pres- 
byterian ministers,  under  the  obligation  of  solemn  ordination  vows, 
may  change  the  old  views  of  doctrine  and  polity  they  approved  and 
pledged  themselves  to  maintain  at  the  time  of  their  ordination,  and 
preach,  publish,  and  advocate  their  new  views ;  claiming,  meanwhile, 
that  those  who  object  to  this  should  themselves  leave  the  Presbytery, 
while  the  advocates  of  the  new  views  may  remain  in  the  body  for  the 
sake  of  good  standing,  without  renouncing  their  departures  from  the 
standards." 

This  specification  being  so  thoroughly  dwelt  upon  at  length,  and  in 
detail  by  Bro.  Ledyard,  one  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  we 
shall  not  take  up  your  time  in  again  calling  attention  to  it,  except  to 
say,  that  it  far  surpasses  our  comprehension,  and,  I  think,  also  the 
comprehension  of  the  court,  how  a  Presbyterian  minister  can  array 
himself  against  everything  that  is  denominational  in  the  body  of 
which  he  is  a  minister,  and  put  into  practical  effect  his  opposition  to 
its  denominationalism,  as  the  defendant  has  done  at  Linwood  and  Mt. 
Lookout,  and  then  insist  in  remaining  in  the  body,  as  an  indorsement 
of  his  ministerial  standing.  What  does  he  say?  "I  have  publicly' 
advocated,  and  propose  to  advocate"  what?  that  denominational  en- 
actments "are  th.e  apples  of  discord,  the  wedges  of  division  in  the 
Christian  church,"  and  while  thus  advocating,  he  insists  in  remaining, 
in  that  church,  in  which  these  apples  and  these  wedges,  are  doing 
nothing  but  producing  discord  and  divisions.  His  declaration  of  re- 
mainmerit  is,  "I  wish  my  name  to  remain  on  the  roll  of  the  Presby- 
tery as  an  endorsement  of  my  standing  as  a  Christian  minister ; "  and, 
again,  "It  is  useless  to  make  any  intimations  to  me  on  this  subject,  as 
I  propose  that  my  name  shall  stand  on  the  roll  of  Presbytery  as  long 
as  .1  remain  in  Cincinnati  or  vicinity."  Instead  of  this  claim  to  remain, 
this  cry,  that  his  name  shall  stand  on  the  roll  of  the  Presbytery,  it 
seems  to  me  that  another,  and  a  diflTerent  cry  should  come  from  the  de- 
fendant, to  wit :  "Who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?  " 
the  denominationalism  of  Presbyterianism,  this  unauthorized  and 
"  unscriptural  thing,"  "  this  hurtful excresence,"  this  "  that  is  essentially 


15 

sinful,"  these  "apples  of  discord,''  these  "  wedges  of  division.''  But, 
enough,  the  court,  in  view  of  the  proof  under  this  specification,  must  and 
will  sustain  the  specification,  and  cannot,  we  think,  do  otherwise. 

The  fifth  specification  is,  "^.s  to  Plurality  of  Official  Membership. — In 
this,  that  Presbyterian,  and  other  evangelical  ministers,  may  belong, 
at  the  same  time,  to  two  different  ecclesiastical  denominations,  antag- 
onistic in  their  principles,  and  subscribe  allegiance  to  both." 

This  would  seem  to  be  a  strange  doctrine.  What?  Serve  two 
masters.  The  thing  can't  be  done,  for  our  Great  Master  has  said,  "  No 
man  can  serve  two  masters,  for  either  he  will  hate  the  one,  and  love 
the  other,  or  else  he  will  hold  to  the  one,  and  despise  the  other,"  and 
we  will  not  add,  "ye  cannot  serve  God  and  mammon,"  but  will  add, 
and  say  to  the  defendant,  ye  cannot  serve  the  Linwood  and  Mt.  Look- 
out Church,  which  is  one  of  the ' '  Union  Christian  Chu  rches  of  America," 
and  at  the  same  time  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  these  United  States. 
Here  are  two  jurisdictions,  antagonistic  in  their  faith,  and  in  their 
polity ;  here  are  two  masters,  and  as  both  cannot  be  served  at  the 
same  time,  the  attempt,  if  it  be  made,  must  result  in  hating  the  one, 
and  loving  the  other,  or  in  holding  to  the  one,  and  despising  the  other. 
Has  the  "Union  Christian  Churches  of  America"  no  basis,  or  bond  of 
fellowship?  If  not,  then  it  has  no  jurisdictional  existence  ;  but  if  it  has 
a  bond  of  union,  a  basis  of  fellowship,  regulations  of  expediency,  then 
it  has  a  jurisdictional  existence ;  and  as  the  defendant  is  by  his  own 
confession  connected  with  the  "  Union  Christian  Churches  of  America," 
he  is  therefore  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  "  Union  Christian  Churches 
of  America,"  whatever  this  jurisdiction  may  be.  Now,  here  is  one 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  and  the  defendant  having  signed  the  bond,  or 
basis  of  fellowship  of  the  "Union  Christian  Churches  of  America,"  was 
thereby  enrolled  a  minister  in  the  church,  known  as  the  "  Union 
Christian  Church  of  America,"  and  this  enrollment  was  in  view  of  the 
invitation  which  the  "Christian  Union  Convention,"  whicli  met  at  Suf- 
folk, Virginia,  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  May,  1875,  at  ten  o'clock  A. 
M.,  gave,  to  wit :  "All  ministers  and  churches  adopting  this  basis  will  be 
recognized  and  enrolled  as  Union  Christian  ministers  and  churches  to 
be  known  as  the  'Union  Christian  Churches  of  America.'"  The  other 
jurisdiction,  is  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  these 
United  States,  and  the  defendant,  by  subscription  of  its  standards,  is 
under  this  jurisdiction,  amenable  to  its  faith  and  its  order,  as  his  name 
now  stands  enrolled  on  the  roll  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  one  of 
the  Presbyteries  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  these  United  States. 
The  only  proof  that  need  be  referred  to,  as  establishing  the  truth  of 
this  specification,  that  a  Presbyterian  minister  may  belong  at  the  same 


16 

time  to  two  different  ecclesiastical  jurisdictions,  antagonistic  in  their 
principles,  and  subscribe  allegiance  to  both,  is  found  in  the  "Christian 
Unity"  of  August  1st,  1875,  page  5,  a  paper  co-editorially  published 
by  the  defendant,  in  which  it  is  said,  "  if  the  union  movement  is  to 
prove  a  success  we  must  organize,  band  ourselves  together  as  min- 
isters and  churches,  advocating  with  freedom  and  eai-nestness  our 
peculiar  principles."  This  is  enough,  the  court  certainly  can  and  will 
sustain  this  specification,  and  therefore  we  will  hasten  on. 

The  sixth  specification  is,  ".4s  to  the  Terms  of  Minuterial  Fellowship. — 
In  this,  that  no  Presbytery  has  a  right  by  any  terms  of  fellowship  to 
exclude  from  its  ecclesiastical  brotherhood,  or  constituent  official 
membership,  any  evangelical  minister  of  any  other  evangelical  denom- 
ination, but  that  such  minister  is,  ipso  facto,  entitled  to  a  pastorate  in 
any  Presbyterian  Church,  to  a  seat  in  any  Presbytery  in  Christendom, 
to  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  and  control  in  our  highest  courts, 
eligible  to  the  chair  of  instruction  in  Presbyterian  colleges  and  semi- 
naries, and  should  be  protected  in  the  right  of  private  judgment  and 
free  speech." 

The  seventh  specification  is,  "As  to  the  Constituent  Membership  of  the 
New  Testament  Church. — In  this,  that  the  doctrine  of  infant  church- 
membership,  grounded  in  the  covenant  of  God  with  believers,  in  behalf 
of  their  offspring,  is  to  be  repudiated  as  a  High-church  theory,  and 
that  the  true  definition  of  the  New  Testament  church  is,  that  it 
consists  of  Christians  only,  believers  only — not  their  children— an 
assembly  or  company  of  the  regerierate  alone." 

The  eighth  specification  is,  ''As  to  the  Admission  of  TJnbaptized  Persons 
to  Church  Membership. — In  this,  that  unbaptised  persons  who  deny,  or 
scruple  to  admit,  the  necessary  and  perpetual  obligation  of  water 
baptism,  as  instituted  by  Christ,  and  the  ordinance  of  baptism  itself 
as  a  covenant  sign  and  seal,  and  initiatory  rite  of  entrance  for  believing 
adults  into  the  Christian  church,  may,  notwithstanding,  be  admitted 
to  church  membership ;  and  that  the  one  condition  and  requirement 
for  entrance  into  the  visible  church  is  credible  evidence  of  faith  in 
Christ." 

From  the  opinions  of  members  of  the  court  already  given,  it  is 
evident  that  the  above  specifications  will  all  be  sustained,  and  as  I 
concur  with  them  in  sustaining  these  specifications,  I  will  not  stop  to 
dwell  upon  them,  but  will  proceed. 

The  ninth  specification  is,  "As  to  saving  faith  in  Christ  and  in  the 
Word  of  God.— In  this,  that  a  person  may  have  true  and  saving  faith 
in  Christ,  and  in  God's  Word,  without  believing  either  that  Christ  was 
true  man,  or  that  the  Word  of  God  is  truly  infallible,  and  that  true 
and  saving  faith,  ipso  facto,  excludes  all  fatal  heresy." 


17 

This  specification  might  be,  I  think,  submitted  without  argument, 
for  certainly  it  will  be  sustained.  Can  any  member  of  the  court  say 
that  the  defendant,  or  any  otlier  Presbyterian  minister,  may  preach 
on  the  subject  of  saving  faith,  that  which  is  cited  in  this  specification, 
and  which  is  so  clearly  another  gospel,  and  then  claim,  and  have  it 
claimed  for  him,  as  it  has  been  here,  that  he  is  not  disloyal  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church  ?  Will  any  member  of  this  court,  so  far  forget  the 
faith  of  his  church,  as  to  say  that  the  defendant,  or  any  other  Presby- 
terian minister,  may  admit  into  the  Presbyterian  Church,  any  one  not 
believing  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  or  any  one  not  believing  in 
the  proper  humanity  of  Christ,  that  he  was  "  Immanuel,"  "God  with 
us,"  "bone  of  our  bone,  and  flesh  of  our  flesh,"  and  then  claim,  and 
have  it  claimed  for  him,  as  it  has  been  here,  that  he  is  not  untrue  to 
the  standards  of  our  faith?  As  to  this  specification,  the  proof  is,  in 
the  language  of  the  defendant,  "  We  believe  that  a  man  may  be  a 
Christian,,  and  not  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  although, 
'almost,'  all  Christians  do  believe  the  Bible  to  be  infallible." 
Again,  "  We  believe  that  a  man  may  be  a  Christian,  and  not  believe 
in  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ,  although,  '  almost,'  all  Christians 
do  believe  that  Jesus  was  true  man,  as  well  as  God."  Again,  "  Sav- 
ing faith  in  Christ  necessarily  includes  all  other  saving  graces,  and 
thereby  excludes  all  fatal  heresy;"  and,  again,  "  Regenerate  souls  are 
all  orthodox."  What  does  the  defendant  mean  in  all  this?  He  means, 
we  presume,  by  the  declaration  that  "regenerate  souls  are  all  ortho- 
dox," the  same  that  he  means  by  the  declaration,  that  "saving  faith 
excludes  all  fatal  heresy,"  and  if  he  means  by  this,  what  the  Apostle 
Paul  means,  when  he  says,  "There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation 
to  them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but 
after  the  spirit,"  then  he  would  be  in  accord  with  the  faith  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  But  what  does  the  defendant  mean  by  these 
declarations,  connected  with  the  declarations  that  a  man  may  deny  the 
"infallibility  of  the  Bible,"  and  the  "  proper  humanity  of  Christ,"  and 
yet  be  a  Christian.  If  he  mean  anything,  it  must  be,  that  to  deny 
the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  is  not  a  fatal  heresy,  nor  is  it  a  fatal 
heresy  to  deny  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ,  and  that  as  neither  of 
these  denials  is  a  faT»^  heresy,  a  man  therefore  may  deny  both  and  yet 
be  a  Christian.  But  the  question  here,  what  is  it?  It  is  not,  that  the 
man  is  regenerate,  and  therefore  must  be  orthodox,  or  that  he  has  saving 
faith  in  Christ,  and  he'is  therefore  safe  from  all  fatal  heresy,  but  is  this, 
whether  a  man  claiming  or  professing  to  have  saving  faith  in  Christ,  and 
at  the  same  time  denying  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  and  the  proper 
humanity  of  Christ,  ought  to  be  received  into  the  Presbyterian  Church  ? 


18 

and  now  to  this  question,  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
emphatically  say,  no;  and  the  defendant  in  receiving  the  deniers  of 
the  "infallibility  of  the  Bible,"  and  "proper  humanity  of  Christ/' 
into  the  Presbyterian  Church,  would  be  at  war  with  her  standards, 
however  consistent  it  might  be  with  the  standards  of  the  Linwood  and 
Mt,  Lookout  Church  to  do  so.  The  ninth  specification,  in  view  of 
the  proof,  the  court  will  without  any  hesitancy  sustain. 

The  tenth  specification  is,  JlS  to  Persistance  in  Advocacy  of  the  forego- 
ing Doctrines,  Principles,  and  Vieivs. — In  this,  that  for  many  years  last 
past,  the  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  being  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Cincinnati,  has  regularly  persisted,  as  lecturer,  editor  and  pastor,  to 
openly  proclaim,  publish  and  advocate,  the  aforesaid  Christian  Union 
doctrines,  principles  and  views ;  that  since  the  appointment  of  the 
Presbytery's  Committee  of  Investigation,  he  has  continued  to  do  the 
same  in  the  public  secular  press,  May  9,  1876,  before  the  Presbytery's 
Investigating  Committee,  June  26,  1876,  and  openly  in  Presbytery 
itself,  October  4,  1876,  and  again  in  the  secular  press,  October  17, 
1876,  subsequent  to  the  aj)pointment  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee; 
having  announced  his  purpose  to  pursue  in  future,  as  in  the  past,  the 
advocacy  of  the  same  principles  of  Christian  Union. 

The  question  here  is  the  length  of  time  the  defendant  has  been  ad- 
vocating the  doctrines,  principles  and  views,  that  are  claimed  to  be  at 
war  with  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  if  generally 
accepted,  would  subvert  her  constitution  and  destroy  her  existence  as 
a  denomination.  Under  this,  as  under  all  the  other  specifications,  the 
defendant  himself  furnishes  all  the  proof.  He  says  :  "I  have  been 
perfectly  candid  and  outspoken  on  this  subject  for  many  years,"  and 
this  subject  he  states  to  be  as  follows:  "  I  do  not  believe  the  Presby- 
terian churches  are  Christian  Union  churches  ;  I  believe  they  ought 
to  be;"  and  again,  "  I  am  advocating  no  sentiments  now  that  I  have 
not  openly  proclaimed  for  ten  years;"  and  again,  "I  have  publicly 
advocated,  and  propose  to  advocate,  the  following  principles  on  the 
subject  of  Christian  Union  ;"  and  these  princij)les  which  he  has  advo- 
cated, and  proposes  still  to  advocate,  are  such  as  necessarily  leads  the 
defendant  in  their  advocacy,  to  denounce  all  denominational  laws  and 
enactments  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  '-unauthorized,"  "  wholly 
unscriptural,"  a  "  hurtful  excrescence,"  "essentially  sinful,"  "apples  of 
discord,"  and  "  wedges  of  division." 

In  the  face  of  the  proof,  that  the  defendant  has,  as  he  says,  for  the 
last  ten  years  been  persistent  and  faithful  in  advocating  his  views,  and 
proposes  still  to  advocate  them,  the  statute  of  limitation  has  been 
pleaded  in  his  behalf;  and,  therefore,  as  the  statute  has  ceased  to  run, 


19 

he  should  go  acquitted.  The  offense,  it  is  chiimed,  if  committed  at 
all,  was  committed  more  than  a  year,  prior  to  the  date  of  the  com- 
mencement of  this  judicial  process.  If  this  were  true,  then  the  statute 
of  limitation  would  avail,  and  no  one  more  readily  than  myself,  would 
vote  for  the  acquittal  of  the  defendant.  But  the  fact  is,  the  offense  is 
an  offense,  with  a  continuendo.  It  has  been  from  the  beginning,  ten 
years  ago,  a  continuous  thing,  a  patient,  persevering  matter  Avith  the 
defendant,  committed  over  and  over  again,  tlirough  all  these  years, 
down  to  the  date  of  the  institution  of  this  judicial  process,  and  com- 
mitted again  and  again,  even  after  the  process  began,  down  to  and 
during  the  progress  of  the  trial,  in  giving  expression  to  the  same  doc- 
trines and  principles  and  views,  for  which  he  is  now  under  trial.  It 
is  therefore  utterly  useless,  for  any  one  to  plead  in  behalf  of  the  defen- 
dant the  statute  of  limitation,  and  on  this  ground  ask  for  his  acquittal. 
And  it  seems  to  me,  perhaps  it  may  be  a  misapprehension  of  mine, 
that  members  of  the  court,  feeling  themselves  utterly  unable  to  meet 
and  dispose  of  the  evidence  against  the  defendant,  must  needs  have 
something  to  say  in  his  defense,  and  so  they  resort  to,  and  plead  in  his 
behalf,  the  statute  of  limitation.  But  this  plea  will  avail  nothing,  the 
specification  will  be  sustained. 

The  eleventh  specification  is,  ^'As  to  the  Common  Fame  in  reference  to 
the  Whole  Charge. — In  this,  that  in  addition  to  evidence  involved  in 
the  foregoing  proofs,  attached  to  the  specifications,  many  newspapers 
have  published  articles  concerning  it,  and  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati 
appointed  a  Committee  of  Investigation,  April  13,  1876,  'to  confer 
with  Mr.  McCune.  and  examine  into  certain  rumors  touching  his 
loyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  report  to  the  Presbytery.' 
Said  Committee  having  so  conferred  and  examined,  and  so  reported  at 
Mt.  Auburn,  September  13,  1876." 

This  specification  is  not,  that  the  defendant  is  guilty  of  common 
fame,  but  relates  to  the  ground  of  his  prosecution.  It  relates  to  the 
accuser  in  the  case,  and  if  it  can  be  shown,  that  there  was  no  common 
fame  existing  at  the  time  these  judicial  proceedings  were  commenced, 
charging  the  defendant,  as  he  now  stands  charged,  then  we  must  all, 
of  necessity,  vote  not  to  sustain  this  specification,  and  this  will  be  the 
end  of  the  whole  case.  Members  of  the  court  have  claimed  in  behalf 
of  the  defendant,  that  there  was  no  common  fame  to  justify  this 
prosecution,  at  least  no  such  common  fame  as  the  Book  of  Discipline 
contemplates,  and  which  is  described  to  be,  a  '•  rumor  specifying  some 
particular  sin  or  sins,  being  general  or  widely  spread,  not  transient  but 
permanent,  rather  gaining  strength  than  declining,  and  must  be  accom- 
panied with  strong  presumption  of  truth."  Let  us  now  see,  whether  the 


20 

fame,  which  is  the  accuser  in  this  case,  was  such  a  rumor  as  the  book 
contemplates,  and  upon  which  it  was  right,  and  proper  to  commence  R 
judicial  proceeding  against  the  defendant,  A  rumor,  like  everything 
-  else,  must  have  a  beginning,  and  it  becomes  a  common  rumor,  or  a 
common  fame,  just  as  it  passes  from  mouth  to  mouth,  whether  it  be 
the  mouth  of  the  press,  or  the  mouth  of  an  individual,  and,  as  it 
continues  to  pass  from  lip  to  lip,  until  it  is  known  to  more  than  a  few^ 
it  then  begins  to  be  general,  and  if  it  is  not  stopi>ed  in  its  passage,  it 
soon  becomes  widely  spread,  and  therefore  a  common  fame.  Now, 
whp.t  is  the  fact  as  to  the  fame  in  the  case  of  the  defendant,  being  a 
common  fame.  It  had  a  beginning,  and  it  specified  a  particular 
offense,  for  the  rumor  was  that  the  defendant  was  advocating  certain 
doctrines,  principles  and  views,  at  war  witli  the  standards  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  calculated  to  subvert  her  constitution  and  destroy 
her  denominational  existence.  This  rumor  passed  from  mouth  to 
mouth,  until  it  was  known  to  more  than  a  few.  The  subject,  to  wit: 
the  defendant,  not  being  true  to  the  faith  and  order  of  his  church  was 
discussed  in  many  newspapers  circulating  throughout,  the  church,  and 
the  country,  until  the  rumor  of  his  disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church  became  general,  and  widely  spread,  extending  beyond  not 
only  the  limits  of  his  Presbytery,  but  the  boundaries  of  his  Synod, 
and  into  the  regions  far  beyond.  The  rumor  was  not  transient^ 
appearing  for  a  day  and  then  passing  away,  but  permanent  and  gaining 
in  strength,  as  the  defendant  continued  to  advocate,  without  cessation, 
his  Organic  Union  doctrines,  principles  and  views,  which  were  the 
subject  of  the  rumor.  It  was  accompanied,  too,  with  strong  presumption 
of  truth,  so  much  so,  as  to  necessitate  the  Presbytery  at  its  meeting  in 
Glendale,  April  13,  1876,  to  raise  a  committee  under  the  following 
preamble  and  resolution  of  instruction  : 

"Whereas,  for  sometime  past,  there  have  l?een  current  rumors  in 
regard  to  the  views  and  course  of  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune,  a  member  of 
this  Presbytery,  involving  the  question  of  his  loyalty  to  the  order  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  whereas,  there  seems  to  be  some  difference 
of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  subject ;  * 

"Therefore,  Resolved,  that  a  Committee  of  three  ministers  and  two 
ruling  elders  be'appointed  to  have  a  full  conference  with  Mr.  McCune, 
and  to  inquire  into  all  the  facts  bearing  on  the  case  and  report  to 
Presbytery  at  the  next  stated  meeting." 

This  committee  reported,  and  concerning  the  facts  about  which  they 
were  to  inquire,  their  report  shows  that  there  were  in  existence  current 
rumors  in  regard  to  the  views  and  course  of  the  defendant,  involving 
the  question  of  his  loyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.    These  curi-ent 


21 

rumors  were,  as  reported  by  the  committee,  that  the  defendant  denied 
the  right  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  maintain  and  enforce  her 
standards  so  far  as  they  were  denominational ;  that  he  was  not  true  to 
our  standards  on  the  subject  of  ministerial  fellowship,  as  well  as  on  the 
subject,  as  to  the  grounds  of  membership  in  the  church— the  defendant's 
"scheme,"  as  the  committee  call  it,  admits  into  the  church  those  who 
deny  the  outward  rights  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  that  he  was 
not  true  to  our  standards,  as  to  the  relation,  to  the  church,  of  the 
baj)tized  children  of  believing  parents;  and  then  the  committee 
conclude  and  say,  that  "any  system  of  Christian  Union  which  contra- 
venes these  principles,  and  ignores  the  command  of  Christ,  '  Go  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them,'  etc.,  if  held  and  practiced  by  our  office 
bearers,  must  be  damaging  to  the  purity  and  unity  of  the  church," 
Now,  in  view  of  this  report,  and  in  view  of  all  that  had  appeared  in  the 
press,  on  the  subject  of  the  defendant's  views  in  relation  to  the  organic 
oneness  of  the  church,  who  can  consistently  say,  that  there  were  no 
current  rumors,  no  common  fame  as  to  the  defendant's  loyalty  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  The  rumor  in  this  case,  if  it  had  been  manu- 
factured to  order,  and  whh.  the  view  of  meeting  the  requirements  of 
the  book,  could  not  possibly  have  met  these  requirements,  more 
fully  than  did  the  rumor  in  the  case  of  the  defendant,  which  did  specify 
a  particular  offense,  was  general  or  widely  spread,  was  not  transient 
but  permanent,  and  rather  gaining  strength  than  declining,  and  was 
accompanied  with  strong  presumption  of  truth,  the  very  things  that 
render  an  offense,  proper  for  the  cognizance  of  a  judicatory.  It  w^as 
therefore  a  poor  defense,  a  weak  defense,  a  last  resort,  a  catching  at  a 
straw,  for  members  of  the  court,  and  notably  Dr.  Morris,  to  claim,  and 
to  argue,  that  there  Avas  no  common  fame,  such  as  the  Book  contem- 
plates for  this  judicial  process  against  the  defendant,  and  that,  therefore, 
he  must  go  acquitted. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  second  charge  and  specifications. 

Having  concluded  what  we  have  to  say  on  the  first  charge  and 
sj)ecifications,  we  come  now  to  the  second  charge,  and  the  specifications 
under  it. 

The  oflTense  here  is,  disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  re- 
lates to  the  order  or  polity  of  the  church,  as  the  first  relates  to  the 
faith  of  the  church.  The  charge  is,  that  the  defendant,  "  being  a 
minister  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  has,  in  contravention 
of  his  vows  of  loyalty  to  the  distinctive  government  and  discipline  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  for  the  publicly  avowed  purpose  of  car- 
rying into  practical  effect  the  doctrines,  principles  and  views  specified 


22 

under  Charge  I,  been  instrumental  in  advising,  promoting  and  en- 
couraging the  new  Anti-denominational  Association  of  the  '  Union 
Christian  Churches  of  America;'  and,  also,  the  new  anti-denomina- 
tional organization  at  Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout,  founded  on  these 
doctrines,  principles  and  views,  his  course  herein  being,  if  generally 
allowed,  totally  subversive  of  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  of  its  very  existence  as  a  distinctive  denomination." 

This  charge  is  developed  in  two  specifications,  with  the  proofs  ac- 
companying each  specification,  in  view  of  which,  the  specifications  are 
expected  to  be  sustained. 

The  first  specification  is,  that  the  defendant,  "  during  certain  years 
last  past,  has  advocated  and  promoted  the  nfew  Anti-denominational 
Association  of  independent  "Union  Christian  Churches  of  America," 
by  editing  the  "Christian  Unity,"  in  Cincinnati,  by  lecturing  at  large 
upon  the  subject  of  Organic  Union,  by  issuing  an  "Address  to  all  the 
Christian  ministers  and  churches  in  North  America,  with  a  basis  of 
union,"  by  joining  himself  to  this  association,  calling  upon  all  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  new  movement  to  adopt  the  basis,  enroll  themselves  in 
the  new  association,  send  delegates  to  attend  its  annual  conventions, 
and  to  advocate  the  peculiar  principles  of  Organic  Union. 

Did  the  defendant  do  all  the  things  cited  in  this  specification  ? 
And,  if  so,  was  it  in  contravention  of  his  obligation  to  the  Presby- 
terian Church  which  he  took  upon  himself,  when  he  answered,  aflirma- 
tively,  the  following  question,  propounded  to  him  by  the  Presbytery 
at  his  ordination,  and  again  at  his  installation  in  a  Presbyterian  pas- 
torate? "Do  you  approve  of  the  government  and  discipline  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  these  United  States  ? "  And  was  it  for  the 
publicly  avowed  purpose  of  carrying  into  practical  effect  his  peculiar 
views  on  the  subject  of  the  organic  oneness  of  all  Christian  churches  ? 
And,  in  doing  all  these  things,  was  he  instrumental  in  creating  the  new 
Anti-denominational  Association  of  the  "  Union  Christian  Churches 
of  America,"  in  that  he  advised,  promoted  and  encouraged  the  same  ? 
The  proof  must  determine  the  answer  to  all  these  questions ;  and  now 
let  us  turn  to  the  proof,  and  hear  what  answers,  yes  or  no,  it  has  to 
make.  As  to  his  editing  the  paper  called  the  "  Christian  Unity,"  and  in 
this  way  advocating  and  promoting  the  new  Anti-denominational  As- 
sociation of  Independent  "Union  Christian  Churches  of  America," 
and  as  to  his  lecturing,  and  in  this  way  advocating  and  promoting  the 
Anti-denominational  "  Union  Christian  Churches  of  America,"  the 
proof  is,  and  we  give  it  in  the  language  of  the  defendant  himself. 
He  says  :  "  The  editor  of  this  pai^er  has,  for  eighteen  or  twenty  years, 
proposed,  that  when  it  should  seeme  vident  that  a  fit  time  had  come, 


23 

he  would  devote  himself  to  the  advocacy  of  the  visible  unity  of  all 
true  Christians.  And  he  has  always  supposed  that  the  most  efficient 
instrumentality  for  furthering  Christian  Union  Avere  public  oral  ad- 
dresses and  the  press.  And  when  he  began,  on  the  eighth  of  Novem- 
ber (1873)  to  issue  this  paper,  he  at  the  same  time  began  to  deliver 
lectures  on  the  subject  of  Christian  Unity.  And  now,  by  request,  he 
will  give  a  brief  account  of  this  part  of  his  work.  He  has  spoken  at 
Butler  and  Boston  and  Newport,  Kentucky;  and  in  Goshen  and  South 
Salem,  and  at  Parrot's  School  House  and  Linden,  and  in  Springfield 
and  Urbana,  at  Buck  Creek  Church,  and  at  New  Richmond  and  Hills- 
boro,  in  Ohio;  and  on  last  Saturday  evening  he  spoke  at  Madison, 
near  Middletown  ;  on  Sabbath  morning  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  Middletown,  of  which  Rev.  J.  Closkey  is  pastor ;  on  Sabbath  after- 
•noon  in  a  school-house,  near  the  village  of  Astoria ;  on  Sabbath  even- 
ing in  Jacksonburg,  in  the  church  of  which  Rev.  J.  Emerick  is  pastor  ; 
and  on  Monday  evening  in  the  Baptist  Church  in  Middletown,  of 
which  Bev.  Mr.  Booth  is  pastor.  In  all,  he  has  spoken  in  eighteen 
different  places."  This  is  the  proof,  and  if  any  proof  ever  clearly 
sustained  any  thing,  this  proof,  without  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  clearly 
sustains  the  specification  that  the  defendant,  by  editing  the  "  Chris- 
tian Unity,"  in  Cincinnati,  and  by  lecturing  at  large  upon  the  subject 
of  Organic  Union,  did  advocate  and  promote  the  new  Anti-denomina- 
tional Association  of  Independent  "  Union  Christian  Churches  of 
America."  And  that  this  was  in  contravention  of  his  vows  of  loyalty 
to  the  distin&fcive  government  and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  we  will  not  stop  to  argue,  as  that  would  imply,  that  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  court  is  not  such,  as  to  clearly  see  it,  without  argument, 
and  we  will,  therefore,  not  insult  the  intelligence  of  the  court  in  any 
argument,  that  what  the  specification  specifies  the  defendant  to  have 
done  in  this  matter,  was,  as  stated  in  the  charge,  in  contravention  of 
his  vows  of  loyalty  to  the  distinctive  government,  and  discipline  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  The  specification  cites  further,  that  the  defend- 
ant advocated  and  promoted  the  new  Anti -denominational  Association 
of  Independent  "  Union  Christian  Churches  of  America,"  by  issuing 
an  "Address  to  all  the  Christian  ministers  and  churches  in 
North  America,  with  a  basis  of  union,"  by  joining  himself  to  this  asso- 
ciation, calling  upon  all  in  sympathy  with  the  new  movement  to  accept 
the  basis,  enroll  themselves  in  the  new  association,  send  delegates  to 
attend  its  annual  conventions,  and  to  advocate  the  peculiar  principles 
of  Organic  Union.  Did  the  defendant  do  what  he  is  here  declared  to 
have  done  ?  Did  he  issue  an  address  to  all  the  Christian  ministers 
and  churches  in  North  America,  with  a  basis  of  union?     Did  he  join 


24 

himself  to  the  new  Anti-denominational  Association  of  Independent 
"Union  Christian  Churches  of  North  America?"  Did  he,  in  the 
address  that  was  issued,  call  upon  all  in  sympathy  with  the  new  move- 
ment to  adopt  the  basis,  enroll  themselves  in  the  new  association, 
send  delegates  to  attend  its  annual  conventions,  and  to  advocate  the 
peculiar  principles  of  Organic  Union?  Did  the  defendant  do  all  this? 
Let  the  proof  speak.  Let  the  testimony  be  heard.  What  we  now 
read  is  from  the  address,  styled  :  "Address  to  all  Christian  ministers 
and  churches  in  North  America,  with  a  basis  of  union ; "  signed  by 
the  defendant  and  others.  "Li  this  basis,  which  we  submit  to  your 
serious  and  prayerful  attention,  we  have  suggested  what  we  believe 
must  be  the  initial  step,  namely,  to  receive  every  Christian  into  our 
fellowship,  and  every  Christian  minister  who  teaches  the  common 
faith  of  the  gospel."  "  Brethren,  this  is  an  attempt  to  induce  Chris- 
tians to  unite  on  the  basis  of  their  agreements."  "We  ask  every  min- 
ister who  approves  it,  to  say  so,  and  to  accept  a  cordial  invitation  to 
attend  the  Christian  Union  Convention,  which  is  to  meet  at  Suffolk, 
Virginia,  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  May,  1875,  at  10  o'clock  A.  M." 
"All  Christian  ministers  and  churches  adopting  this  basis,  and  enrolled 
as  Union  Christian  ministers  and  churches,  to  be  known  as  the  'Union 
Christian  Churches  of  America.'"  "As  earnest,  practical  men,  we 
propose  to  obey  the  Christian  Union  precepts  of  the  New  Testament, 
by  organizing  an  actual  visible  oneness."  "If  the  union  move- 
ment is  to  prove  a  success,  we  must  organize,  band  ourselves  together 
as  ministers  and  churches,  advocating  with  freedom  and  earnestness 
our  peculiar  princij)les."  Tlie  above  is  the  proof,  with  much  more, 
that  we  might  read  from  the  great  mass  of  testimony  accompanying 
the  specification,  that  the  defendant  did  do  all  the  things,  which,  in 
the  specification,  he  is  claimed  to  have  done.  And  now,  that  all  this 
done  by  the  defendant,  was  in  contravention  of  the  order  and  polity 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  no  Presbyterian,  ordinarily  familiar  with 
the  polity  of  his  church,  need  be  told.  Indeed,  this  specification,  with 
its  proofs,  as  well  as  the  entire  case,  might  have  been  confidently 
submitted  without  argument,  and  without  even  a  doubt,  as  to  every 
specification  and  charge  being  fully  and  fairly  sustained  ;  and  now, 
believing  that  this  specification  must  be,  and  will  be,  sustained  by  the 
court,  we  will  pass  on  to  the  second  specification. 

The  second  specification  is,  "that  the  defendant  co-operated  in  organ- 
izing, and  desired  to  organize,  and  agreed  with  others  to  organize, 
before  and  during  November,  1875,  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  putting 
into  practice  his  Organic  Union  principles,  the  new  organization  at 
Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  preparing  and  commending  to  the  public 


25 

the  declaration  and  preliminary  statement,  accompany  its  basis  of 
fellowship,  thus  promoting  a  new  society,  which  receives  all  Christians, 
whether  dismissed  or  undismissed,  and  all  evangelical  ministers,  with- 
out exception  ;  provides  for  the  examination  of  candidates  for  the 
ministry,  and  for  sending  forth  ministers  to  preach  the  gospel ;  and 
has  joined  himself  hereto,  and  accepting  a  call,  and  becoming  its  first 
pastor,  being  examined  in  theology,  and  installed  by  an  irresponsible, 
because  undelegated  council,  and  all  this  without  leave  of,  or  dismis- 
sion from,  his  Presbytery,  and  against  advice  to  the  contrary,  and  is 
at  present  pastor  of  said  society." 

If  this  specification  be  true,  then,  what  the  defendant  has  done  is  so 
utterly  inconsistent,  so  fearfully  in  contravention  of  the  polity  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  that  we  are  amazed  that  any  Presbytery  could 
stand  by  and  witness  it,  without  resorting  to  its  episcopal  power  to  put 
a  stop  to  it,  and  then,  if  persisted  in,  to  proceed  judicially  against  the 
defendant,  for  disloyalty  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  But  is  the  speci- 
fication in  all  its  details  true?  Let  the  proof  answer.  The  church  in 
question  was  organized  November  8th  and  10th,  1875,  and  now  did 
he  prior  to  this,  desire,  and  agree,  and  co-operate  with  others  to  organize 
the  church  in  question,  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  putting  into  prac- 
tice his  Organic  Union  principles,  etc.,  as  stated  in  the  specification. 
Here  is  the  proof.  The  defendant  says:  "I  accepted  the  invitation 
to  preach  at  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout  for  a  year,  before  the  Union 
Church  Avas  organized ;  but  it  was  mutually  agreed  that  we  would 
look  toward  the  organization  of  a  Union  Church."  And  again,  he 
says :  "  I  did  approve  of  the  movement,  and  after  they  had  sent  for 
rae  to  preach  for  them,  I  counseled  and  co-operated  with  those  who 
did  organize   this  church." 

It  will  be  remembered,  as  it  is  in  testimony,  that  the  defendant, 
when  released  some  years  ago  from  the  pastorate  of  the  Lincoln  Park 
Presbyterian  Church,  asked  his  release  on  the  ground  that  he 
desired  to  give  his  time  exclusively  to  the  advocacy  and  propagation 
of  Organic  Union  principles,  and  upon  this  ground  the  relation  was 
dissolved,  and  how  the  Presbytery  did  dissolve  the  relation  on  this 
ground,  is  a  mystery  to  me,  and  must  be  to  every  true  Presbyterian. 
Then,  upon  the  dissolution  of  this  relation,  the  defendant  went  to  work 
publishing  the  ''Christian  t//i('i?/,"  a  paper  devoted  exclusively  to  the 
advocacy  of  Organic  Union  principles ;  then  he  is  heard  of  here,  and 
there,  all  over  the  country,  delivering  addresses  on  the  same  theme, 
claiming  at  the  same  time,  as  he  did,  that  public  oral  addresses  and 
the  press  were  Che  most  efficient  instrumentalities  in  furthering  his 
scheme  or  system,  as  it   has   been  called  !    and   the  strangest  of  all 


26 

things  is,  that  in  the  face  of  all  this  noise,  from  public  oral  addresses 
and  the  press,  sounding  throughout  the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery  and 
.  the  Synod,  and  far  beyond,  members  of  the  court,  who  ought  to  know 
better,  claim  that  the  common  fame  on  which  this  prosecution  is 
grounded,  had  no  existence.  Leaving  off  public  oral  addresses  and 
the  press,  as  efficient  instrumentalities  in  promoting  organic  oneness, 
where  next  is  the  defendant  found,  and  what  is  he  doing  ?  We  find 
him  at  Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,  acting  in  the  capacity  of  a  stated 
supply  to  a  Presbyterian  Church  ?  whose  faith  and  order  he  had  obli- 
gated himself  to  maintain — not  at  all,  but  to  several  Baptists  and 
Episcopalians,  and  a  few  Presbyterians,  who  were,  from  the  teachings 
of  the  defendant,  convinced  of  the  essential  sinfulness  of  their  denomi- 
nationalism,  and  would  now  come  together  on  the  ground  of  their 
common  agreements  and  organize  the  "  Union  Christian  Church  at 
Linwood  and  Mt.  Lookout,"  and  this  movement,  the  defendant  says, 
he  approved,  and  that  when  they  had  sent  for  him  to  preach  to  them, 
he  did  then  counsel  and  co-operate  with  them,  in  and  about  the  organ- 
ization of  that  church,  and  did  thus  put  into  practice  his  Organic 
Union  principles,  ui)on  a  basis  of  fellowship  excluding  all  God's  truth, 
beyond  the  statement  of  a  few  leading  truths,  leaving  the  balance, 
which  is  "profitable  for  doctrine  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  in- 
struction in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thor- 
oughly furnished  unto  all  good  works,"  out  in  the  cold,  without  recogni- 
tion, or  practice,  and  did  thus  commend  to  the  public  this  minimum 
basis,  with  its  declaration  and  preliminary  statements,  and  so  did. pro- 
mote a  new  society,  which  receives  all  Christians,  whether  dismissed 
or  undismissed,  whether  baptized  or  unbaptized,  whether  believing  in 
or  not  believing  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  or  in  the  proper  hu- 
manity of  Christ,  which  receives  all  evangelical  ministers  without  ex- 
ception, examines  candidates  for  the  ministry,  and  sends  them  forth 
to  preach  the  gospel,  especially  the  gospel  of  organic  oneness.  Did 
he  then  join  himself  to  this  new  society?  Then  accept  a  call,  and  be- 
come its  first  pastor?  Then  was  he  examined  in  theology,  and  in- 
stalled by  an  irresponsible  council?  And  then  was  all  this  without 
leave  of,  or  dismission  from  his  Presbytery,  and  against  advice  to  the 
contrary?     And  is  he,  at  present,  pastor  of  said  society? 

The  testimony  is,  that  defendant  was  present  at  the  organization  of 
the  new  society,  and  while  not  acting  in  an  official  capacity,  yet  desired 
that  it  should  be  organized,  and  upon  its  organization,  it  is  in  proof, 
that  the  defendant  was  unanimously  called  to  be  its  pastor,  and  as  to 
his  acceptance  he  himself  says,  "  I  have  accepted  the  pastorate  of  the 
Union  Christian  Church  at  Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout."     And  as  to 


27 

his  installation,  and  the  irresponsibility  of  the  council  installing  hira, 
the  proof  is,  that  "the  installation  of  Rev.  W.  C.  McCune  took  place 
at  half  past  seven  o'clock,  in  Linwood  Hall,  before  a  large  number  of 
■citizens  of  Linwood,  according  to  the  programme  adopted  at  the 
council  iu  the  afternoon,"  and  as  to  the  irresponsibility  of  the  council 
installing  hira,  the  proof  is,  that  the  council  was  composed  of  ten 
ministers  belonging  to  four  different  evangelical  denominations,  they 
were  not  delegated  by  any  ecclesiastical  bodies,  but  came  simply  as 
individuals  upon  the  invitation  of  the  church,  and  did  not  assume  in 
any  sense  to  represent  their  respective  denominations,  but  acted 
entirely  on  their  own  responsibility,  and  after  a  full  examination  by 
this  council  as  to  the  defendant's  doctrinal  soundness,  and  his  motive 
in  undertaking  the  pastorate  office,  the  pastoral  relation  between  the 
defendant  and  the  "  Union  Christian  Church  at  Linwood  and  Mount 
Lookout"  was  constituted,  and  so  far  as  the  defendant  is  concerned,  all 
that  he  did  do,  in  and  about  the  organization  of  the  new  society,  and 
his  becoming  its  pastor,  was  done  contrary  to  the  advice  of  one  of  his 
brother  members  of  the  Presbytery,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  letter  of 
Rev.  Thomas  H.  Skinner  to  hira,  declining  an  invitation  given  by 
•defendant,  to  take  part  with  others  in  the  recognition  of  the  "  Union 
Christian  Church"  at  Linwood  and  Mount  Lookout. 

And  now  the  question  is,  has  the  defendant,  in  view  of  all  the  facts, 
connecting  him  with  the  organization,  and  his  installation  as  pastor  of 
the  new  society,  which  is  not  a  Pi-esbyterian  Church,  not  a  Baptist 
Church,  not  an  Episcopal  Church,  not  a  Methodist  Church,  not  a 
Congregational  Church,  but  is,  if  anything,  an  anti  and  undenomi- 
national society,  intended  to  exhibit,  in  the  judgment  of  the  defendant, 
the  model  i^ew  Testament  church  organization,  been  true  to  the 
standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  which  he  received  and  adopted, 
and  in  doing  this,  took  upon  himself  the  obligation  to  teach  and  to 
practice  the  same — the  same,  not  only  as  to  all  the  fundamentals  of 
our  Presbyterian  faith  and  order,  but  as  to  all  the  details  that  make 
complete  our  system  of  faith  and  polity,  the  mint  and  anise  and 
cummin,  as  well  as  the  weightier  matters  ;  the  latter  being  what  the 
defendant  ought  to  have  done,  while  the  former  he  ought  not  to  have 
left  undone.  We  have  no  zeal  in  this  matter  beyond  what  we  conceive 
to  be  according  to  knowledge.  AVe  have  no  personal  feeling  either 
for,  or  against  the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  or  for,  or  against  the 
defendant.  We  have  looked  simply  at  the  law  of  the  case,  the  charge 
in  the  case,  and  the  proof  in  the  case,  and  are  satisfied,  that  not  the 
shade  even  of  a  reasonable  doubt  exists,  as  to  both  charges,  and  all  the 
specifications   being   sustained   by   the    proof,    that   our   brother,  the 


28 

defendant,  has  for  years  past,  been  teaching  and  practicing  "doctrines, 
principles  and  views,  not  only  at  war  with  the  standards  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  but  if  generally  accepted,  totally  subversive  of  its 
constitution,  and  of  the  very  existence  of  the  Presbyterian  denomina- 
tion itself" 

Mr.  Moderator  ay4  brethren  of  the  court,  we  submit  the  case. 


Date  Due 

FAC0L1  ^ 

FAniiLTV 

f 

